On 04/11/2020 12:06, Mike Kaganski wrote:
On 04.11.2020 13:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
That a reference is something completely different than a pointer
shows e.g. in the rule that if a class has an implicit copy
constructor and a non-static data member of reference type, then the
copy constructor is defined as deleted (while there is no such rule if
the data member is of pointer type).
I always had an impression that this is an obvious consequence of the
special initialization semantics of the references?
Sure, and maybe we are moving in circles. My point in this thread has
been that switching from T* to T& to rule out nullptr may be ill advice.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
