From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-21 10:56:09
Peter Dimov wrote:
[...]
> IMO, weak_reference is not significantly better than weak_ptr to warrant a
> name change. I do realize that weak_ptr is not a smart pointer by the "*
> and -> canonical definition". On the other hand, weak_ptr is part of the
> smart pointers library, it's a _very_ close companion to shared_ptr, and
> their implementations are very similar, too. So weak_ptr is good enough for
> me, all things considered.
weak_owner<T>? weak_ownership<T>?
regards,
alexander.