Re: [boost] Re: class proposal

From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 20:32:33

"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> 
> Yes, it is better.
> 
> The first example has the problem of, you still have to go look up the
> function to see if it's actually changing anything, or if it's taking the
> param in, reading teh value, then modifying based on what was read.

Then how about:

  boost::tuple< boost::shared_ptr< LargeObject > > result = f(
largeObjectSharedPtr );

> The second example has the problem of copying a potentially large object,
> and it doesn't allow for in/out params.

I'm still not convinced that in/out parameters are necessary.

Noel
-- 
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender
does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.