RE: [boost] Re: class proposal

From: Persson Jonas (jonas.persson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-24 16:25:51

> So then what's wrong with:
> 
>   void f( T const& obj_ );  // f will not change obj_
>   void f( T& obj_ );  // f may change obj_

They look identical at the caller's site, making the life harder for the
maintanance programmers.
 
> Can you explain the difference between:
> 
>   f( const_cast< T const& >( _obj ) );
> 
> and
> 
>   f( in_out( _obj ) );

The first is a user of f() writing a comment in a complicated way.
The second is the author of f() enforcing self documenting code.

> And what would happen if someone doesn't use this nifty new class?
It would fail to compile.

> In fact, it sounds like you don't even need a class:
> 
> #define in_out( obj ) obj

No, this is not enforced by the compiler. It is no better than a comment.

As I understand it, the whole point of this this proposal is to have a tool
for making the compiler enforce self documenting code.