"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