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
> 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
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk