From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-24 17:09:06
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> I'd be against the idea of doing something like
> const int x;
> func3(const_cast<int &>(x));
I didn't suggested anything of the sort.
> When I see const on a variable I expect it to not change anywhere. I'm
> against violating const when possible, so I wouldn't do it as a general
> design rule. const would lose all meaning in a program where you started
> const_casting all over.
Maybe I'm missing something since I missed the beginning of this thread. Can you explain what the intention of the proposed class and its usage (from both the caller and the callee), please?
> And, as far as the macro goes
> > #define in_out( obj ) obj
> There's no guaranteed enforcement there. People who feel like using it
> might, those who don't feel like using it won't. So, no one would have to
> follow the rule. With the classes, they're type checked at compile time, if
> you don't specify func3(out(x)); with my method, it will not compile.
> People calling my function would have to decorate the function call
OK. I think I see what you're getting at. And now, I think I'm starting to like the idea. OTOH, I also still think such usage would be most useful to large objects only -- small objects should be returned from the function.
-- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk