**Question**: Are there any compelling reasons to use naked pointers for non-owning resources or should we be using `weak_ptr`?

[CPP.reference](http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/weak_ptr) states

> 
> `std::weak_ptr` models temporary ownership: when an object needs to be accessed only if it exists, and it may be deleted at any time by someone else
> 
> 
> 

But then, in the accepted answer for [Which kind of pointer do I use when?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8706192/which-kind-of-pointer-do-i-use-when) we have the statement:

> 
> Use dumb pointers (raw pointers) or references for non-owning references to resources and when you know that the resource will outlive the referencing object / scope. Prefer references and use raw pointers when you need either nullability or resettability.... If you want a non-owning reference to a resource, but you don't know if the resource will outlive the object that references it, pack the resource in a `shared_ptr` and use a `weak_ptr`.
> 
> 
> 

This answer is followed by a lot of back-and-forth about the use of naked pointers, with no real resolution. I can't see any reason for using dumb pointers. Am I missing something?