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

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:35:28

>From: "Justin M. Lewis" <boost_at_[hidden]>

> > >From: "Justin M. Lewis" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > > > > Looking a function signature up becomes a nightmare when there are
> > > > > potentially 100's of them.  So, that's hardly a realistic
solution.
> > > > I think it is.
> > >
> > > If you think it is, then you've never been in the situation where you
> > > have 1000's of undocumented functions, and you've never had to trace
through
> > > a function where 10's if not 100's of unfamiliar calls are made.  And,
if
> > > you think it is a realistic solution, then you're really not seeing
the
> > > problem these classes were meant to address.
> >
> > Yes, I'm seeing it. It's just that there are alternative solutions to
> > this, as has been presented.
>
> There really aren't reasonable alternative solutions, at least not in my
> case.

In your opinion. I think there are reasonable alternatives. If there wasn't,
I'd think everybody would have agreed with you.

Regards,

Terje