From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 23:37:23
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 22:18 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
> Or, how about polymorphic types, where you can't simply create the
> 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
>>>> were not, so far as I could see, any better than your proposal, not
>>>> 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:
> 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