From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-30 09:55:12
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering whether the get_pointer function used by mem_fn et
> al. is really justified. Since you can't invoke a member function on a
> null pointer anyway, why not simply use &*p for this purpose?
The original reason for using get_pointer in mem_fn is that mem_fn does not
require get_pointer(p) to return &*p, or p.get(), or a raw pointer. It only
expects an object with operator->* defined. Another reason is that supplying
a get_pointer() for an existing type is (potentially) less intrusive than
enabling the &*p syntax.
On the other hand... the ((*p).*f)(...) form would work with most smart
pointers and iterators, so it might be worth exploring.