From: Johan Johansson (johanj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-09 17:02:11
me22 wrote:
>On 2/9/06, Pavel Antokolsky aka Zigmar <zigmar_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>When pointer passed it immediately indicates
>>that variable might be modified as opposite to non-const reference,
>>which is a rare beast nowadays. If you think of foo(someVar) via
>>foo(&someVar), the second hints about possibility of modifying
>>someVar, while first one doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
That sounds like a local convention to me. Actually it sounds like
something a C programmer would think to me. Why pass anything by pointer
unless you have to?
>
>To me, non-const
>reference means output
>
Me too.
> while a pointer means that the method will be
>taking ownership of that pointer.
>
>
Well, it's a possibility, but again not necessarily global law I think.
j