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

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
> 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.

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!).

and-raw-doesn't?-ly y'rs,
dave