From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 11:35:43
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > Oh, I found that confusing because the pointer might well be something
> that
> > can't be expressed in "C".
> > What's wrong with "raw_" (or if you like, from your explanation,
"bare_")?
> > Doesn't that pretty much say it all?
>
> What is wrong with 'get_pointer'?
Also a good question. The only argument I would make against "get_pointer"
is that shared_ptr<T> already is a (kind of) pointer, depending on your
definition. I realize a smart pointer is not a pointer, but since that's a
little confusing, raw_pointer makes it a little more explicit.
-Dave