Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!apollo!mrst!sdti!wmm
From: wmm@sdti.com (William M. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: C++ 2.0 Question -- Whats wrong with this code ??
Message-ID: <1989Oct24.023233.2376@sdti.com>
Date: 24 Oct 89 02:32:00 GMT
References: <1152@aber-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmm@sdti.SDTI.COM (William M. Miller)
Organization: Software Development Technologies, Inc.
Lines: 14

In article <1152@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>It has occurred to me that if BS had hit upon the idea of having overloadable
>'new' and 'delete' earlier, instead of the assign-to-this-in-constructor hack,
>'this' should have been a reference.

Actually, it's my understanding that the reason "this" is a pointer instead
of a reference is that "this" predates references in the evolution of the
language and that there were already too many programs depending on "this"
as a pointer for it to be changed to a reference.
-- 
Non-disclaimer:  My boss and I always see eye-to-eye (every time I look in
the mirror).

wmm@sdti.sdti.com