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

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 15:50:16

"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:1e7301c21d2a$c201e050$6601a8c0_at_boostconsulting.com...
> Oh, I found that confusing because the pointer might well be something
> that can't be expressed in "C".

Ah.  Clearly, some of us did not know this was even possible.  The only
pointer-like things I know of that aren't in C are pointer-to-member*, and
I can't imagine such things would be returned from a get_pointer()
function.

> What's wrong with "raw_" (or if you like, from your explanation,
> "bare_")? Doesn't that pretty much say it all?

Seems reasonable.  I would prefer "raw" over "bare" (maybe because
the latter lends itself to abusive punnery, as if we don't already have
enough in the language!).

Dave