Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question about error_code arguments

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 
news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD69046934E01F_at_msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
> 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.