Christopher Diggins called this kind of pointers "unsmart pointers" in a CUJ article: http://www.ddj.com/dept/cpp/184401977 http://www.ddj.com/dept/cpp/184402003 Although it doesn't present exactly the same functionnality, it applies well to it. He is maybe not the first to put that name on that concept however. I often use the kind of pointer Alex just presented to us. However I call it ref_ptr, as I use it to make an optional reference to something. The main advantages of this dumb/unsmart pointer for me is: 1- As Alex says, to standardize the pointer interface. Some may like, some other not, but I personally like it. 2- Explicitly specify that this is a pointer without any ownership relation. With legacy code where you can have a mix of smart pointers and explicit memory managment, it can be useful. 3- Default init to null, so no more uninitialized pointers. 4- assert that the pointer is not null at * or -> Vincent Bhérer-Roy On 19-Jun-07, at 19:04, Michael Marcin wrote:
Perhaps a more fitting name would be dumb_ptr then.
:)
- Michael Marcin
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/ listinfo.cgi/boost