On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 14:20 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > The same here and at a few other places. It may be just me not being > > used to references... nevertheless, if someone really wants to use > > them like this, at least make them const and you will save a night of > > frantic debugging to someone, probably to yourself. But I strongly > > prefer pointers... it's hard to describe how strongly I prefer them. > > OK. How do others feel? As I said above, I like the above idiom, > since it puts the assertion of non-NULLness in a single place.
I'm voting for references. References can be seen as yet another software structuring tool that instantly communicate some properties such as you mentioned above. In addition to that it's also a hint of ownership, i.e. if I get an object& from somewhere I know that I better not even think about whether to delete it or not. Cheers, Oleg
