From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 15:50:16
"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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()
> 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!).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk