From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 11:20:16
Thomas Witt wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Noel,
>
> Noel Yap wrote:
> |
> | Which means if I wanted to write a function that doesn't pass ownership,
> | its ownership semantics is ambiguous:
> |
> | extern C* blah(); // should pointer be free'd by caller?
> |
> | If, instead, I could do:
> |
> | extern dumb_ptr< C > blah();
> |
> | the intent is clearer.
>
> Sorry for being so dumb, but the intent isn't clear to me. What kind of
> ownership semantics should dumb_ptr imply?
dumb_ptr<> is meant to have the semantics of no transfer of ownership.
I believe this is the last major usage of raw pointers.
HTH,
Noel
-- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.