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]]

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/d...cmex/html/vclrfrestrictionsofmanagedtypes.asp

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

 

[Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]]

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

Thanks for the catch.

Ronald Laeremans
Visual C++ team

 

[Edward Diener]

You're talking about this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...cmex/html/vclrfrestrictionsofmanagedtypes.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]

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 [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