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

From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 19:02:03

On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 17:52 America/Denver, Noel Yap wrote:
> Gregory Colvin wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 17:13 America/Denver, Noel Yap wrote:
>>
>>> Noel Yap wrote:
>>>>   std::auto_ptr< T > t( new T() );
>>>>   f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( t.get() ); // clearly an in/out parameter
>>>
>>> Or if you don't want to dynamically allocate t:
>>>
>>>   T t;
>>>   f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( &t ) ); // clearly an in/out parameter
>>>
>>>   static T t;
>>>   f( boost::dumb_ptr< T >( &t ) ); // clearly an in/out parameter
>>
>> Not so clear -- it depends on whether f() cares about the initial
>> value of t.
>
> So you're saying the parameter can be an out-only parameter?  If so, 
> for
> out parameters, use:
>
>   boost::dumb_ptr< T > f();
>   t = f();
>
> IMHO, the intent is much more clear than:
>
>   f( out< T > t );
>   f( out< T >( t ) );

Not to me it isn't.

>>  Also, not in my opinion any more clear than:
>>
>>     f(&t);
>
> I agree, but the OP doesn't like raw pointers from what I've gathered
> from the thread.

Who is OP?

Anyway, I dislike out parameters more than I do raw pointers.