@thorduragust There is no difference.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@thorduragust There is also the promise that the reference is never null, whereas the pointer could be.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jwatte
@jwatte@cmuratori@thorduragust Except with a giant asterisk next to 'never'.2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @nothings
@nothings@jwatte@thorduragust Yes, I feel like people are conflating the _semantic_ difference with the _practical_ difference.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@nothings@jwatte@thorduragust There is only a _semantic_ difference as far as I know - the actual codegen does not change.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@nothings@thorduragust Turns out, if you follow the intended semantics, the programming language helps you.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jwatte
@jwatte@nothings@thorduragust No it doesn't? Either you had a pointer at some point, which means you *'d it to turn it into a reference,1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@jwatte@nothings@thorduragust or you didn't, and so you couldn't have had the bug. It's the same risk as pointers either way?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@jwatte@nothings@thorduragust I've never understood the (specious, in my opinion) claim that references help here.4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori
@cmuratori@jwatte@nothings@thorduragust not only that, you can't null check references.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@sssmcgrath @jwatte @nothings @thorduragust Yep, so no fault-tolerant code further down the chain. Good job C++!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.