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

From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 19:45:54

"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> 
> Again, like I said, everything new has some associated learning curve, and a
> lot of what goes into boost is NEW.

The interface to the smart pointers is not new -- it exists in
std::auto_ptr<>.

>  That quantity library that's being
> discussed, that's NEW, it would require a learning curve.  Your random
> library, that's new as well.  How about the spirit parser?

We're discussing ways of passing parameters.  There are older ways of
doing this.  The newer ways have a well-established and standard
interface.

> So, which solution has the best long term maintainability?  I think mine
> does, since it makes the intent 100% clear.  So, in 5 years, there's still
> no question as to what's happening.

Do you know what's happening with:

  void f( std::auto_ptr< T > t_ );

I think in five years, this idiom will still exist as well.  Moreover,
it's already part of the standard.

Let's say std::dumb_ptr<> were added to the standard.  The above could
be replaced by:

  void f( std::dumb_ptr< T const > t_ );

the only difference being the memory management of t_ at the call site
(unless, of course, within f, t_ is passed into another function).

What is necessary to change it to:

  void f( std::c_in< T > t_ );

My guess is that the function definition would have to change as well no
matter what since it's now not using pointer notation.

Noel