From: Terje Slettebo (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-26 08:13:23
>From: "Erdei Andras" <ccg_at_[hidden]>
> On Friday, Apr 25, 2003, at 13:18 America/Denver, Justin M.
> Lewis wrote:
>
> > As I said, I'm fine with f(&x, &y, z).
>
> i'm not convinced in_out is the way to go, but using
> pointers is very far from conveying the same information:
>
> pointers can be 0, while references and in_outs can't,
> and the reason behind using a pointer is often exactly
> this (an "optional" parameter)
>
> pointers can point to arrays, while references and in_outs
> can't
You can of course pass a reference to an array, or store the reference it
in_out. It just means the array size is passed, as well.
> pointers can point to const data, while in_outs can't
That's the point of in_out, to be able to modify it. An object in general
can of course point or refer to const data.
Regards,
Terje