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

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 19:07:39

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

> 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.
>

That doesn't really make sense, since out params aren't always avoidable,
nor are in_out params.  I mean, disliking them aside, they're necessary
sometimes.

> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>