Re: [boost] On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr

From: Ian Whittley (imw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 09:09:34

>
> > If 'get_pointer' is going to become a free-standing equivalent of 'get'
> > member function, I would suggest to call it 'c_ptr' (never liked 'get'
>:),
> > e.g.
>
>What is "c_" supposed to mean? Can we see what the unabbreviated version
>looks like?

Surely it just means a bare c-style pointer? so c_ means C :)

Ian Whittley