From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 15:55:43
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "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*,
> I can't imagine such things would be returned from a get_pointer()
Any pointer to non-POD can't be expressed in C. Anyway, we should avoid
making undue reference to another language when it's actually not
relevant... I think.
> > 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