From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 16:32:14
On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 14:59 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis wrote:
> Pull from your experience as a programmer and think, you've certainly
> encountered places where you're passing polymorphics objects around by
> reference or by pointer, calling member functions inside of them that
> be modifying their internal state.
Yes, I've done that a lot when dealing with COM interfaces. In my
experience your proposal would not have made that job any easier,
as I would have had to write wrappers for every method of every
interface, and I can't recall a single defect in that code caused
by failing to know which parameters were out parameters anyway, so
why bother? Your mileage may vary.
> And, while you may not use non-copyable
> objects very often, a large part of what I do at work is dependent on
> non-copyable objects that I'd like to be able to pass to functions to
So if you really need to do that, just do it. I still don't see
much value in cluttering up the code with in, out, and in_out.
> Apparently non-copyable objects are common enough that you have a boost
> class dedicated to them.
> Or, is no one going to be happy until I write a whole application and
> that on the internet to show the use of my classes? It seems a bit
> ridiculous that what I'm posting can't be looked at and figured out.
So far I've looked at it, figured it out, and not liked it.
> mean, most of my C++ books give trivial examples that make little
> sense that
> make the point clear, and I was able to get the point, without having
> nitpick the details.
What you call nitpicking Boost calls rigorous review. It's a
very hot kitchen in here, staffed by some of the world's best
chefs, who keep their knives very sharp.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk