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

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 20:55:42

David Abrahams wrote:
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> > 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. 

Hmm, haven't thought about it. Then indeed, 'c_ptr' is not strictly
technically correct name. Oh, well.

> Anyway, we should avoid making undue reference to another 
> language when it's actually not relevant... I think.

I think the reference to C is relevant to a large extent - it's mostly C API
(e.g. Win32 API) and standard library functions like 'memcpy' that force you
to retrieve the plain pointer from a smart one.

Aleksey