From: James Curran (jamescurran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-22 09:50:00
Chuck Messenger wrote:
>> * add_options() should use references rather than pointers
> "Pointer for return value" is C semantics. In C++,
> pointers denote optional values. Non-const references are for return
I disagree *strongly*. In C and C++, the address-of syntax clearly
indicates that this is a value that will be changed. Your suggestion of
using a non-const reference would require me to check the header file to
find the signature of _every_single_F#$^%ing_function to figure out which
parameters are changed and which one's aren't. (particularly in the case of
add_options() where it would take the causal reader about 10-20 minutes to
find the correct function signature.
>>> * Mandatory options
>> Good idea. Output formatting is the only issue with me.
um... do you think we could start calling this feature "mandatory
parameters" since "mandatory options" is an oxymoron.
-- Truth, James Curran www.noveltheory.com (personal) www.njtheater.com (professional)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk