Justin M. Lewis wrote:
I agree. I probably wouldn't have cared for this myself, had I never seen
the code I'm working on now. I mean, normally I work pretty independently.
But, now I'm stuck with the job of maintaining code that's been around
forever, has been ported several times to a
Justin M. Lewis wrote:
And, it's not either pass in a whole object or pass in a pointer, you're
forgetting references. This new class takes in a reference, and stores
that. It doesn't do anything with pointers.
I didn't really forget references. IMHO, references are pointers that
are
Terje Slettebø wrote:
The part about RVO was really concerned with the out() scenario, not
in_out(). I'm not sure if passing a smart pointer buys you very much. In
this case, the smart pointer is const but the pointee is not, so the const
in the signature is really just masking what is going
Justin M. Lewis wrote:
I diagree with this. The code I've written using this looks more like
void add_char( in_outstd::string str, char ch)
{
std::string s = str;
s += ch;
}
I think you're assuming everyone will code the way you want. If you're
going to force everyone to code this
Justin M. Lewis wrote:
Yes, it is better.
The first example has the problem of, you still have to go look up the
function to see if it's actually changing anything, or if it's taking the
param in, reading teh value, then modifying based on what was read.
Then how about:
boost::tuple
Just wondering, looking at boost/thread/once.hpp, I see that once_flag
is typedef'd to long, why not bool or char to take up less memory?
Thanks,
Noel
--
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender
does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
The news group advertised on the site,
news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel, gives no response. Has it
moved?
Thanks,
Noel
--
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender
does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
