> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> "Paul A. Dugas" wrote:
> > > Why not use the shorter Handle() or VoidHand() cast syntax?
> >
> > Maybe I'm being thick skulled here.
> > {
> > VoidHand foo = ...
> > routine_taking_a_handle( Handle(foo) );
> > }
> > Doesn't this construct a second (temporary) pointer in the scope,
> > assign "foo" to it, then pass it to the routine?
>
> No, this should be the kind of cast that just makes the compiler happy
> and has zero effect on the generated code.
Correct -- no affect on the generated code ... but it's a pain
for the programmer to have to remember when these casts are needed.
Nobody has yet explained any significant difference or
rationale for the two "generic" handle types to exist,
or any logic to when one is used vs. when the other is
used.
I second the initial request: settle on one or the other
and clean up the headers.
--
-Richard M. Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
