From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:53:44
Neither tells you what the intended use is.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Yap" <Noel.Yap_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance
> "Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > 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
> > information given.
> What about with dumb_ptr<> or ref<>?
I don't know where to find docs for dumb_ptr, but for ref
The constructor isn't explicit so you can have implicit type conversions at
the point of invocation, so there's not necessarily any information given at
the point of invocation. Plus there is a cast operator, which, like I said,
I removed from c_out and c_in_out to prevent it from being implicitly cast
into a function call that doesn't take a c_out or c_in_out as a param to
Keep in mind, the point of this is to have the compiler enforce decorating
the params to functions.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk