> mm.. well, i prefer that fairly common would be to pass meaningful data back > and forth rather than > dummy values. I don't understand... when I say "fairly common", I mean that in the C world, it seems common to use null-passing for optional arguments. I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but we don't have control over that, so...
> For that best solution, IMO, would be to use 2 methods which call same > function, > but one uses 'nil' in function signature (and therefore method doesn't takes > extra argument), > while other takes extra argument but doesn't accepts nils, for sure. Yuck ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Documentation-Suggestion-and-Question-tp4720805p4724069.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
