dsimcha wrote: > > The optional buffer idiom is great for stuff that's returned from a function. > I > use it all the time. On the other hand, for temporary buffers that are used > internally, whose mere existence is an implementation detail, having the > caller > maintain and pass in a buffer is a horrible violation of encapsulation and > good > API design, even by the standards of performance-oriented APIs. Even if you > know > it's never going to change, it's still annoying for the caller to even have to > think about these kinds of details. >
Yes, quite.
