Re: [boost] in/out parameters,codingstylesandmaintenance[was:classproposal]

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-02 03:54:52

Justin M. Lewis wrote:

>> Your intent is good. However, you cannot claim that we'll all be
>> saved from the "trouble of having to hunt down all kinds of
>> functions", unless, and that's a big unless... *ALL* functions and
>> function calls are retrofitted with your inout solution. If this is
>> not done wholesale, 
>> the programmer will still be uncertain as to which functions will
>> modify his argument. I imagine him faced with a function call:
> 
> You're right, I can't claim that this will be used in all code, in all
> projects, throughout the universe.  I don't think I've ever made that
> claim, like anything else, it's up to the people writing the code to
> adhere to coding guidelines.  The POINT here is, you CAN use this
> library in a project to make your intent clear at the point a
> function is called.  And, this 
> whole point of retrofitting, am I the only person planning on writing
> new code ever?  You don't need to retrofit EVERYTHING to put a new
> idea to use. You can choose to just start using it going forward, or
> pick it up at the beginning of the next project.  And, while YOU may
> personally never use it, that doesn't mean no one will.

No, my point is that you cannot claim that we'll be saved from the 
"trouble of having to hunt down all kinds of functions" with your 
solution. Please read my message again.

-- 
Joel de Guzman
joel at boost-consulting.com
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net