Restriction of Managed Types

[Edward Diener]

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read that GC
and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed types ". That
can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a __gc class can not have a
pointer to an object of another __gc class ? I must be missing something in
the documentation, but OOP programming as I know it would end if a class
couldn't have a pointer to an object of another class. What have I missed
here in the explanation ?

[Doug Harrison [MVP]]

Edward Diener wrote:

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read that GC
and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed types ". That
can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a __gc class can not have a
pointer to an object of another __gc class ? I must be missing something in
the documentation, but OOP programming as I know it would end if a class
couldn't have a pointer to an object of another class. What have I missed
here in the explanation ?

You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nagedtypes.asp

I'm not sure what the article meant to say, but your instincts are correct.
What it says is wrong.

--
Doug Harrison
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

Yes, I agree. I'll get the topic fixed.

Thanks for the catch.

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ team

"Doug Harrison [MVP]" <ds*@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:pb********************************@4ax.com...

Edward Diener wrote:

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read that GC
and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed types ". That
can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a __gc class can not have apointer to an object of another __gc class ? I must be missing something inthe documentation, but OOP programming as I know it would end if a class
couldn't have a pointer to an object of another class. What have I missed
here in the explanation ?
You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nagedtypes.asp
I'm not sure what the article meant to say, but your instincts are correct. What it says is wrong.

--
Doug Harrison
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++

[Edward Diener]

Doug Harrison [MVP] wrote:

Edward Diener wrote:

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read
that GC and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed
types ". That can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a __gc
class can not have a pointer to an object of another __gc class ? I
must be missing something in the documentation, but OOP programming
as I know it would end if a class couldn't have a pointer to an
object of another class. What have I missed here in the explanation ?
You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nagedtypes.asp

Yes.

I'm not sure what the article meant to say, but your instincts are
correct. What it says is wrong.

Glad to know that.

[Edward Diener]

Ronald Laeremans [MSFT] wrote:

Yes, I agree. I'll get the topic fixed.

Thanks for the catch.
No problem. As a C++ programmer, I am trying to learn MC++ programming and
it surely couldn't be correct.

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ team

"Doug Harrison [MVP]" <ds*@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:pb********************************@4ax.com...

Edward Diener wrote:

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read
that GC and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed
types ". That can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a
__gc class can not have a pointer to an object of another __gc
class ? I must be missing something in the documentation, but OOP
programming as I know it would end if a class couldn't have a
pointer to an object of another class. What have I missed here in
the explanation ?

You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nagedtypes.asp

I'm not sure what the article meant to say, but your instincts are
correct. What it says is wrong.

--
Doug Harrison
Microsoft MVP - Visual C++

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

BTW, second guessing what we did mean, the most likely explanation is that
we meant to say "interior pointer". Which would have made the statement
correct.

Ronald

"Edward Diener" <ed******@tropicsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e5**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

Doug Harrison [MVP] wrote:

Edward Diener wrote:

In the MSDN topic for MC++ "Restriction of Managed Types", I read
that GC and value types "cannot contain pointers to other managed
types ". That can't be right. Does it really mean to say that a __gc
class can not have a pointer to an object of another __gc class ? I
must be missing something in the documentation, but OOP programming
as I know it would end if a class couldn't have a pointer to an
object of another class. What have I missed here in the explanation ?
You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nagedtypes.asp
Yes.

I'm not sure what the article meant to say, but your instincts are
correct. What it says is wrong.

Glad to know that.