Re: [boost] in/out parameters, coding styles and maintenance [was: class proposal]

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-24 19:11:38

I don't know how you can avoid out params altogether.  For non-copyable
objects you're SOL, it's either an out param, or nothing.  And, again, the
case of functions returning multiple things.  Out params are fairly common,
as I said before, especially in things like COM.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] in/out parameters, coding styles and maintenance [was:
class proposal]

> Augustus Saunders <infinite_8_monkey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > 1) We normally pay a lot of attention to safety of usage, clarity of
> > intent, confusion from subtle semantics etc in our discussions.
> > Sometimes we might even belabour the point (though I think it's
> > healthy).  This question goes to the library writers here.  Would you
> > replace:
> >
> > int foo(int &param);
> >
> > with
> >
> > int foo(in_out_param<int> param);
> >
> > provided that the in_out_param had no space/time overhead.
>
> Probably not, but I am so uncomfortable with out parameters that I
> basically always avoid them unless their usage is completely idiomatic
> (e.g. in some operators like stream insertion << and the obvious
> assignment variants =, +=, ...).  Normally I'll go way out of my way
> to avoid it.
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>