From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 10:52:21
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > > I guess the right thing to do is to document 'get_pointer(px)' as
> returng
> > > the raw pointer contained in px on the smart pointer side, and make
> > > mem_fn_get_pointer forward to it on the mem_fn side. Comments?
> >
> > Do we need two separate functions?
>
> It would be preferable to have the finer control... if it were possible.
I
> forgot that you cannot forward in C++.
I don't understand why finer control would be desirable, and I /really/
don't understand what you're saying about forwarding. It seems to me that
manual forwarding is an unfortunate fact of life in C++ library design.
-Dave