[boost] Re: Formal Review: Command Line & Config library

From: James Curran (jamescurran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-22 09:50:00

Chuck Messenger wrote:
>> * add_options() should use references rather than pointers

> "Pointer for return value" is C semantics.  In C++,
> pointers denote optional values.  Non-const references are for return
> values.

    I disagree *strongly*.   In C and C++, the address-of syntax clearly
indicates that this is a value that will be changed.  Your suggestion of
using a non-const reference would require me to check the header file to
find the signature of _every_single_F#$^%ing_function to figure out which
parameters are changed and which one's aren't.  (particularly in the case of
add_options() where it would take the causal reader about 10-20 minutes to
find the correct function signature.

>>> * Mandatory options
>>
>> Good idea. Output formatting is the only issue with me.

    um... do you think we could start calling this feature "mandatory
parameters" since "mandatory options" is an oxymoron.

-- 
Truth,
James Curran
www.noveltheory.com (personal)
www.njtheater.com (professional)