Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 18:37:02

"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > >  How would you handle a class member
> > > that's not a pointer?
> >
> > I don't understand.  Why not take the it's address?
> >
> 
> You were suggesting auto_ptr, auto_ptr deletes its contents on destruction,
> you can't delete a pointer that's taken from unallocated data.

I had a few suggestions.

You're right that std::auto_ptr<> isn't a one-size-fits all strategy. 
BTW, I consider all memory to be allocated -- the differences are where
and how its allocated.

If std::auto_ptr<> isn't usable in your situation, boost::dumb_ptr<>
should be.

> > Since dumb_ptr is just a wrapper around pointers, you can still avoid
> > using pointers, unless you consider references not to be pointers.

I didn't get a response from this comment.

> > Also, what stops people from:
> >
> >   T t = out( t_ );
> >   f( t ); // this is an out parameter
> >
> >   T t = in_out( t_ );
> >   f( t ); // this is an in/out parameter

Neither from this.

Noel