I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a reason
why it was a bad idea.
I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
The idea is to have a mutable reference:
int& a; // This is a mutable reference (essentially a pointer, but
with reversed behavior).
assert(&a is null); // the a
On 06.06.2012 15:45, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a reason
why it was a bad idea.
I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
There is. For one thing I like pointer for being explicit about
dereferencing something. In this sense having ref
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 06.06.2012 15:45, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
>>
>> I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a reason
>> why it was a bad idea.
>> I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
>>
>
> There is. For one thing I like pointer fo
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 11:58:12 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 06.06.2012 15:45, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a
reason
why it was a bad idea.
I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
There is. For one thing I like pointer for be
On Wednesday, 6 June 2012 at 11:45:34 UTC, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote:
I had this idea for a long time now and was trying to find a
reason
why it was a bad idea.
I failed to find that reason, so here it is:
The idea is to have a mutable reference:
int& a; // This is a mutable reference (essentially
