Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Francesco S. Carta, post: 3950874"]
I forgot to add one thing. From the functional point of view, using a
const pointer to a non const object is equal to just using a
reference, only the syntax used to access those members changes.

It means that my example, based on your code, could be rewritten as:
-------
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class A {};
class B {};

class Spider {
public:
    Spider(A& a, B& b) : a(a), b(b) { }
    void print() {
        cout << "&Spider_.a == " << &a << endl;
        cout << "&Spider_.b == " << &b << endl;
    }
private:
   A& a;
   B& b;
};

class BigClass{
public:
    BigClass() : Spider_(A_,B_) { }
    void print() {
        cout << "&bc.A_ == " << &A_ << endl;
        cout << "&bc.B_ == " << &B_ << endl;
        Spider_.print();
    }
private:
   A A_;
   B B_;
   Spider Spider_;

};

int main() {
    BigClass bc;
    bc.print();
    return 0;
}
-------

Considerations should be made about the fact that using pointers can
give a hint about the locality of the data.

The code inside of Spider's members will have to use the "->" member
access syntax, recalling to the coder that those objects - in this
very case - do not directly belong to Spider.

But those considerations happen to fall under the "tastes" category,
and many - probably most - C++ coders will prefer references over
const pointers to non-const objects, also because the member access
syntax will be more compact and faster to type.

Just another two cents added.

Have good time,
Francesco
[/QUOTE]

Verification