On Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003, at 12:04 America/Denver, Terje Slettebų wrote:
From: "Justin M. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, I guess, based on all the code I've been reading at work it didn't
seem so small, chasing down all kinds of functions across 100's of files
to see why exactly values are changing mid function I'm looking at
without warning.
Anyway, this would allow for stronger enforcement of the rule that changing params should be marked somehow. As the programmer of a library people are using, I can force them to mark the params they're passing as out or in_out, so in 5 years when someone else comes along and has to debug it, it's all clear what's happening.
Why not use T & if the function may change it, and const T & if it won't?
Because looking at the call f(&x) I wonder what happens to x, whereas looking at the call f(x) I don't?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
