Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Smarter pointers - another solution
Message-ID: <3701@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 4 Feb 91 20:35:26 GMT
References: <3454@lupine.NCD.COM> <3.UUL1.3#8618@softrue.UUCP>
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 22

In article <3.UUL1.3#8618@softrue.UUCP> kearns@softrue.UUCP (Steven Kearns) writes:
>I am sure this must have been mentioned before, but I cannot
>recollect the discussion, if there is one...
>
>What is wrong with allowing one to define
>"class T* {.....}"

This requires the language to be "mutable" (according to Stroustrup's
definition).  Stroustrup doesn't want to allow the language to be
"mutable" so this proposal is probably unacceptable.

Besides, if you were allowed to control all cases where values of the
type T* and T& could be generated (by providing your own definitions
of operator& and T::operator T&() as I described in my latest proposal)
then you would not need to add all of the syntactic extensions which
your proposal would entail.

-- 

// Ron Guilmette  -  C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.