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

From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 17:30:23

"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > Can we agree, then, that there's no need for c_out?
> >
> 
> Of course not, because you haven't yet addressed the issue of non-copyable
> objects, OR polymorphic types, OR large structs that can't be copyed into a
> retrun value, OR a function where you have a lot of return types.

Yes, we have.  One more time:

  T f(); // if T has a cheap copy
  T const& f(); // if f owns the return value, can handle polymorphic
types
  dumb_ref< T > f(); // if T doesn't have a cheap copy, f has to own the
return value, can handle polymorphic types
  dumb_ptr< T > f(); // if the return value can be NULL, f has to own
the return value, can handle polymorphic types
  result< T > f(); // if the return value is gotten from an asynchronous
call
  tuple< T, U > f(); // if f has many return values, I think one can use
bind, too

Did I miss anything?  BTW, one can probably combine some of the above to
get the exact flavor of return one wants.

Noel