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

From: Justin M. Lewis (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 15:24:51

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance

> I don't see the point of providing this
>
>     void SetArea(c_out<CShape> s)
>     {
>     CShape &ls = s.get_ref();
>     ls.SetArea(100);
>     }
>
> and then writing this
>
>     SetArea(out(psq));
>
> instead of just writing this in the first place
>
>     psq->SetArea(100);
>

You're not addressing the purpose of the idea here, just the specifics of an
example I through together real fast.  You can see the point, and the
proposed useage, how about responding to that, rather than nitpicking?

>
> On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 04:44 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis wrote:
>
> > This is what I came up with real quick.
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/in_out/test1/
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
> > To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 9:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [boost] Re: in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance
> >
> >
> >> Code, please.
> >>
> >> On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 22:18 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> >>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>