Subject: Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question about error_code arguments
From: Peter Foelsche (peter_foelsche_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-26 17:03:38
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> As Scott McMurray noted, the call doesn't transfer ownership and isn't
> polymorphic. However, using a null
> pointer to indicate the absence of something is idiomatic as Peter Dimov
> noted. From a purely esthetic point of
> view, I prefer not having to take the address of the error_code to call
> such a function.
How does having to pass an address screw up your esthetic view of the code?
Maybe you could start redefining the language with some defines (grin).
I usually try to avoid non-constant references in my own code, since they
are obfuscating the code.
I prefer the clarity of using the address operator to tell the person
reading the code, what is happening.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk