Greg Colvin wrote: > At 07:25 PM 2/4/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote: >> ... >> >> If an implicit conversion to the pointed-to type is provided, there >> is no need to overload the subscript operator: >> >> ... >> >> The same applies to the standing problem of operator->*(). >> >> 2c. > > Yep. More reasons why I prefer that smart pointers have an > operator T*. But my view has always been a minority opinion, > in this as in so many other things.
An implicit conversion could easily be an optional feature in a policy-based smart pointer. Custom deleter policy + implicit conversion policy == smart pointer that handles arrays. Paul Mensonides _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
