Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:42PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
I personally don't like this TextClassPtr class. 'TextClass *' is
meaningful enough. I would suggest to get rid of the TextClassPtr
header altogether now.
That may be the t
rgheck wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:42PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
In my last commit regarding boost::shared_ptr, I left TextClassPtr as
a silly typedef:
typedef TextClass * TextClassPtr;
...
Comments welcome.
I personally don't like this TextClassPtr class. '
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:42PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
In my last commit regarding boost::shared_ptr, I left TextClassPtr as a
silly typedef:
typedef TextClass * TextClassPtr;
The attached would turn it into something akin to a "strong typedef", where
TextClassPtr r
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:42PM -0500, rgheck wrote:
>
> In my last commit regarding boost::shared_ptr, I left TextClassPtr as a
> silly typedef:
>typedef TextClass * TextClassPtr;
> The attached would turn it into something akin to a "strong typedef", where
> TextClassPtr really just wrap
In my last commit regarding boost::shared_ptr, I left TextClassPtr as a
silly typedef:
typedef TextClass * TextClassPtr;
The attached would turn it into something akin to a "strong typedef",
where TextClassPtr really just wraps a TextClass*. The point of this is
to enforce the distinction
