From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 18:02:30
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> That's fine. But, if you're working on a project, in a team, and the team
> decides that they recognize the ambiguity of whether or not a call is
> changing a param as a problem, and they decide that they'd like to enforce
> the use of out and in_out as a standard, why would you be bothered by that?
> If you hate it so much, don't use it in your projects, that's fine. But,
> your not liking it doesn't mean that no one else ever has to deal with the
> problem I'm trying to fix. And, despite your distaste for the idea, the
> people I work with like it, and there have been several people here who have
> seen it's usefulness. I think it's a nice option to have, for people who'd
> like to use it. For those of you who don't want to use it, I'm not trying
> to force its use on you.
Many of us have faced the problem and found other, more standard ways of
dealing with it.
Adding things useful to a minority of programmers will lead to library
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joel Young" <jdy_at_[hidden]>
> To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:48 AM
> Subject: [boost] in/out parameters, codingstylesandmaintenance
> > If given the choice, I will never use in_out, etc.
> > If a library forces me to use these then I will probably choose
> > an alternative to the library.
> > Joel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk