For the last 10 years or so, it's been considered bad practice to use naked pointers in C++.  This is because of shared_ptr and friends, along with stl.  It's great; for example, I have a moderately sized C++ project I'm working on at the moment that has absolutely no explicit delete's - everything is handled by scope.  

Here's a recent talk from Bjarne Stroustrup who says something to these affects:
http://video.ch9.ms/ch9/252f/ed5c3dc3-3335-493b-9e2c-9fd00012252f/GoingNative2012KeynoteStroustrup_med_ch9.mp4

I think he gets into unique_ptr about 2/3rds in.

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Billy Stiltner <billy.stiltner@gmail.com> wrote:
You guys made me remember why I don't like compiler options. Thanks! haha. asm to me is like programming in c++. but inline assembly in either c or c++ is not. What we need is flat address space without the overhead of GDS segment sorcery. It's pretty bad to be able to delete a  list of a list of pointers to objects  that deletes itself before it deletes itself in a polymorphic virtual destructor. ;) C++ is great but it is much easier to keep up with pointers in c. c is just like c++ without the confusion you can work yourself into a pointer to a function is a pointer to a function and if yo look at the assembly language there aint nothing wrong with using struct instead of class. it's all code an data when its running. the differences in the output are going to be more than likely caused by leaky capacitors and noisy fans or  2 coils of wire too close together.

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list