From: Kevin Scarr (kscarr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-22 14:18:05
Marco Costalba wrote:
> It comes much more naturally to me to think at this:
>
> if (ptr)
> ptr->doSomething();
Ok. This usage is fine with me. I guess I just hadn't seen the
overload<> as being a declaration of an object with pointer behaviour.
If that is what it is, then I would prefer the usage above.
Thanks for the clarification,
Kevin