From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 11:01:38
Oh, I found that confusing because the pointer might well be something that
can't be expressed in "C".
What's wrong with "raw_" (or if you like, from your explanation, "bare_")?
Doesn't that pretty much say it all?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:54 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr
> "Ian Whittley" <imw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > >[...]
> > >What is "c_" supposed to mean? Can we see what the unabbreviated
> > >looks like?
> > Surely it just means a bare c-style pointer? so c_ means C :)
> Yeah, I thought the analogy to std::string::c_str() was clear enough. ;)
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk