Re: Out parameters, References vs. Pointers (was: Proposal: use nsresult& outparams in constructors to represent failure)

I used to be the module owner of our coding conventions, but I believe that duty has now fallen on Nathan Froyd with the establishment of the new module covering c++ idioms and usage, noted in this governance thread:

Re: Out parameters, References vs. Pointers (was: Proposal: use nsresult& outparams in constructors to represent failure)

I agree with this. FWIW, the Google style guide requires that reference params be const. https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Reference_Arguments -Ekr On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > Pointers are prefereable for outparams because it

Re: Out parameters, References vs. Pointers (was: Proposal: use nsresult& outparams in constructors to represent failure)

Pointers are prefereable for outparams because it makes it clearer what's going on at the callsite. (at least indicating that something non-trivial is happening) On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote: > Nicholas Nethercote writes: >

Re: Out parameters, References vs. Pointers (was: Proposal: use nsresult& outparams in constructors to represent failure)

More evidence that our coding conventions need an owner... -j On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Kan-Ru Chen (陳侃如) wrote: > Nicholas Nethercote writes: > > > Hi, > > > > C++ constructors can't be made fallible without using exceptions. As a > result,

Out parameters, References vs. Pointers (was: Proposal: use nsresult& outparams in constructors to represent failure)

Nicholas Nethercote writes: > Hi, > > C++ constructors can't be made fallible without using exceptions. As a result, > for many classes we have a constructor and a fallible Init() method which must > be called immediately after construction. > > Except... there is one way