Karolin Varner wrote:
Hi,
is smartptr still being maintained? There are four pull requests, one more than a year old.
Notes on https://github.com/boostorg/smart_ptr/pull/23: - you're using constexpr without checking whether it's supported; should be BOOST_CONSTEXPR. - ditto for static_assert. - since you're adding new functionality, the existing test (pointer_cast_test.cpp) should be left alone, and new tests should be added instead. - the test uses lambdas without checking whether they're supported. - the unique_ptr casts do not seem to properly account for T or U being X cv []. So for example in std::unique_ptr<Y const[]> p1( new Y[1] ); std::unique_ptr<Y> p2 = const_pointer_cast<Y>( std::move(p1) ); std::unique_ptr<Y[]> p3 = const_pointer_cast<Y[]>( std::move(p1) ); the second line compiles and the third doesn't, when the opposite should be the case. - there should be tests that make sure that the legal unique_ptr conversions compile and that the illegal ones do not. - there should be tests that check that the existing static_assert guard actually prevents illegal derived to base conversions from compiling. - it seems a bit odd to disallow static_cast'ing from derived to base with base lacking a virtual destructor and yet allow base to derived. I find the static_assert check is a bit odd here, actually, given that unique_ptr<derived> is convertible to unique_ptr<base>. We're in a way being more Catholic than the pope here.