> > 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;
^
I presume you meant y here and not x.
> std::pair<int,int>* y2 = new std::pair<int,int>;
> int* p3 = y2.first;
> }
Yes, that is similar to the point that Allan has made too - and I am
inclined to agree now.
However, it doesn't change the original argument.
Regards,
[)o
IhIL..
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
