Re: [boost] in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-02 03:45:22

Again, that's ridiculous.  The idea doesn't have to be universally applied
to all things everywhere to be useful.  For it to be useful it just has to
be applied consistently across a project.  Not across all libraries written
by all 3rd parties.  As long as the people from your own development team
choose to use these classes consistently, then they server their purpose
perfectly.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

> RE: [boost] in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance> From: Joel de
Guzman
>
> >> When you see:
> >>
> >>    foo(a, b, c)
> >>
> >> Are you 100% sure, without looking at the docs or the API, that
> >> a, b or c is not modified? The only plausible answer is: that
> >> depends,
> >> if foo is retrofitted or not. *** That's the problem ***.  Anything
> >> less
> >> than 100% guarantee is false security.
>
> > There is merit in what you say, that if you're going to do this the
> > best way to do it is in the language, and I think that's the only
> > thing that would get me to use it. OTOH, you're definitely seeing the
> > glass as half empty.
>
> Actually, I see the glass as:
>
>     APIs_retrofitted_with_in_out / all_the_APIs_in_the_world
>
> IOTW, virtually empty :-)
>
> -- 
> Joel de Guzman
> joel at boost-consulting.com
> http://www.boost-consulting.com
> http://spirit.sf.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>