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

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 23:18:46

Or, how about polymorphic types, where you can't simply create the object
internally in the function, where you HAVE to deal with what's passed in in
one way or another.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

>
> On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 22:03 America/Denver, Noel Yap wrote:
>
> > Gregory Colvin wrote:
> >> Anyway, I jumped into this thread mainly to opine that Noel's
> >> suggestions
> >> were not, so far as I could see, any better than your proposal, not to
> >> rehash what we have already discussed.
> >
> > I think that if ref<> were used instead of dumb_ptr<> in my previous
> > posts, it's a little better since, IIRC, ref<> already exists.
>
> A little.  But so far Justin's examples don't require it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>