From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 17:47:48
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> Again, you're addressing the specifics of an example, rather than the idea
> itself. You can see the point, and you have to realize that in real life,
> situations come up where you have an object that can't be copied, but you
> still want to use, and pass around to functions.
Again, the point is that out parameters aren't necessary. You and
others may see a lot of them in your code. IMHO, without seeing the
rationale behind the decision, the code you see is messy because of the
out parameters. I also think this is why you're having such a hard time
tracking down variable changes.
double d = sqrt( x );
is much easier to comprehend than:
sqrt( x, d );
You seem to want to band-aid the latter with:
sqrt( in( x ), out( d ) );
which will, indeed make it a little clearer, but I think it's still not
better than the former.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk