Re: Preventing Unchecked_Deallocation?

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Alan Copeland <acopeland01@gmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 7, 4:30�pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand that last sentence. �You don't need pointers
>> (access types) to call primitive operations.
>
> Sure, but from a practical standpoint, what other choice is there?
> You can't save the actual object Z off into an element of both X and Y
> (otherwise you would have two separate objects), so you have to save
> an access value.  That way primitive ops of X and Y can both call
> primitive ops on the same Z.  Unless I'm missing something...

If you want X and Y to share the same Z, then yes, they have to
point at it in some way.  But I still don't see what that has
to do with primitive ops.

You also often need pointers when working with class-wide
objects (you can't have a component type T'Class,
directly).

- Bob