"Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > Pointers are Resources
>> >> > Resources are not (all) Pointers.
>> >>
>> >> Actually,
>> >>
>> >> Pointers *refer to* resources
>> >> Not all pointers refer to (are) resources
>> >
>> > How about:
>> >
>> > Pointers are a way of referring to resources.
>> > Not all ways of referring to resources are pointers.
>
> Alright - it seems everyone pulled me up on that lapse - I must remember to
> be more careful round here ;-)
>
>> But also:
>>
>> Not all pointers refer to resources.
>
> Hmmm, unless you are thinking of null pointers I can't think of any pointers
> that don't refer to resources. Perhaps we have a different definition of
> resource?
> Could you elaborate?
I think of resources as things which can be separately managed
independent of other objects. Here are some examples of non-resource
pointers:
void f()
{
int x;
int* p1 = x; // arguable
std::pair<int,int> y;
int* p2 = x.first;
std::pair<int,int>* y2 = new std::pair<int,int>;
int* p3 = y2.first;
}
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
