----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Formal review: Optional library
> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't know of 'standard' examples, but in my code I do that a lot: > > > > class curve > > { > > shared_ptr<polygon> acquire_approx() const { return m_approx ; } > > shared_ptr<polygon> m_approx ; > > } ; > > But this is not a get(). It is an acquire_approx(). :-) > > I think that most programmers are familiar with get() and would expect the > returned pointer to be invalidated by the first mutating operation. I don't > see what are you trying to achieve with peek(). > I try to achieve the notion that the returned pointer is invalidated after the first mutating operation :-) Are you sure this is interpreted this way by most programmers familiar with get()? If you are, and others support your view, I have no problem changing peek() for get(). I've seen so many people doing nasty things to pointers obtained via get() that I figured that the name peek() would communicate more strongly that the object is still leaving inside some other place. But this is a minor point really, if most of you like get() better, let it be get(). Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost