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

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:49:11

I don't think there really are reasonable alternatives, otherwise I wouldn't
still be arguing :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

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