Peter Dimov wrote:
shared_ptr has recently been accepted into the Library Technical Report:
Wow.. That's quite a read. The amount of work you Boost guys put into all of the subtle details is amazing. I found it quite interesting but what I was looking for was some rationale on not allowing comparing shared_ptr to NULL. Typically when I compare pointers, I often like to compare it like "if ( ptr != NULL )" explictly. I like this for three reasons: 1. It strongly shows that you are testing a pointer. 2. It reads better in terms of saying what you want. 3. I program in Java where it's required, so I'm in the habit ;). Although I do see some reasons why shared_ptr doesn't allow this test: 1. "As Close to Raw Pointers as Possible, but no Closer" 2. shared_ptrs after reset or default construction are "empty", a different concept than from "storing NULL". 3. If you allow a comparsion to NULL ( or 0 ), then the code "if ( mySharedPtr == myInt )" will compile but will make no sense. Is that pretty much the line of thinking there? Jason Winnebeck