Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 11:46:18

> Yes yes, the examples I make up while writing e-mail aren't spectacular,
> aware. But, you really can't tell me that you've never been in a position
> where out params and in_out params are clearly useful.

Okay, but I've never been in a position where having in params, out params,
and in_out params indicated at every single call site of a function is
useful. I'd posit that such a 'need' only shows up where coders have
regulary defined behemoth (e.g. 20+-argument) functions and passed around a
lot of junk to each of them. But labeling the parameters to 'solve' this is
just applying band-aids -- instead, fix the problem by restructuring the
code and data. Clearly, that can be a painful process, but it's not the
lack of in, in_out, or out labeling that's causing it, it's the
grotesqueness that was written to begin with.

I'm -1 on the whole idea. I can see that it might have some appeal to a
Hungarian method user, but I'm not one of those, and I wouldn't expect
anyone to ever need these for use with even average code, never mind good


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at