From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:06:23
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 20:46 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 18:07 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
>> From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]
>> Agreed. And when they are necessary I am happy enough with
>> pointers -- or at least my unhappiness is not reduced by
>> any of various wrappers proposed here.
> The difference here is, at the call site you still get an explicit
> description of how the data is being used, with just a pointer,
> there's no
> information given.
Yes, I understand that. But I spent many years in purgatory
and using COM and Win32 interfaces, with lots of out and in/out
including doubly indirected pointers, and I just don't recall ever
facility like this. The problem you are working hard to solve just
a problem in my experience, so I have zero willingness to clutter my
an attempt to solve it. Your mileage may vary, as ever.
Anyway, I jumped into this thread mainly to opine that Noel's
were not, so far as I could see, any better than your proposal, not to
rehash what we have already discussed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk