Re: [Cppunit-devel] A new architecture ?

[Duane M. <dua...@ma...>]

--- At Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:51:51 +0200, Bastiaan Bakker wrote:

>Duane Murphy wrote:
>
>>--8<---
>>(3) Use of references. While pointers are evil, references are your
>>friend. Const references are your best friend. They take up minimum
>>space, they have maximum reliability (they cant be NULL), you cant modify
>>
>Hmm, AFAIK references take as much space as pointers. I suspect most 
>compilers translate references and pointers to the same code. They 
>certainly CAN be *NULL (and you'll segfault if you try to use them).
>Personally I find having both pointers and references a not so elegant 
>feature of C++.  But I must confess to have built up a distaste for many 
>C++ 'features' over the years and to prefer the simplicity of Java.

You are absolutely correct, except for one piece. References are
typically implemented in terms of pointers. I have never heard of one
that wasnt but there is nothing that says it couldnt be.

The part that is incorrect is that references can be NULL. A NULL
reference is illegal. Through programming error you can certainly create
a NULL reference, but that would be a programming error. ( There was an
article in CUJ a few months ago in the "Conversations" column by Jim
Hyslop and Herb Sutter but I cant seem to find an online reference to
that article.) Pointers on the other hand can legally be NULL.

There are places for pointers and places for references. If I can use
references I will. If not I try and use counted pointers. I prefer
automated memory management to relying on my own poor faculties.

..Duane