Behaviour of const KSharedPtrs

[Richard Smith]

On Saturday 13 November 2004 00:54, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> Should the following code compile ?
>
> template<class T>
> class Foo
> {
>     public:
[...]
>             T* get() const { return _t; }
[...]
> };
>
> int
> main (int argc, char* argv[])
> {
>     Foo<int> foo;
[...]
>     foo.get() = &y;

No. You just assigned to a non-lvalue. What's your point? And how does that 
relate to the fact that KDE's KSharedPtr, a smart pointer class template, 
does not behave like a pointer (or like any other smart pointer 
implementation I know of)?

Oh, and please don't top-post :)
-- 
Thanks,
Richard