From: Terje Slettebo (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-26 08:13:23
>From: "Erdei Andras" <ccg_at_[hidden]>
> On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 13:18 America/Denver, Justin M.
> Lewis wrote:
> > As I said, I'm fine with f(&x, &y, z).
> i'm not convinced in_out is the way to go, but using
> pointers is very far from conveying the same information:
> pointers can be 0, while references and in_outs can't,
> and the reason behind using a pointer is often exactly
> this (an "optional" parameter)
> pointers can point to arrays, while references and in_outs
You can of course pass a reference to an array, or store the reference it
in_out. It just means the array size is passed, as well.
> pointers can point to const data, while in_outs can't
That's the point of in_out, to be able to modify it. An object in general
can of course point or refer to const data.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk