From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 19:45:54
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
>
> Again, like I said, everything new has some associated learning curve, and a
> lot of what goes into boost is NEW.
The interface to the smart pointers is not new -- it exists in
std::auto_ptr<>.
> That quantity library that's being
> discussed, that's NEW, it would require a learning curve. Your random
> library, that's new as well. How about the spirit parser?
We're discussing ways of passing parameters. There are older ways of
doing this. The newer ways have a well-established and standard
interface.
> So, which solution has the best long term maintainability? I think mine
> does, since it makes the intent 100% clear. So, in 5 years, there's still
> no question as to what's happening.
Do you know what's happening with:
void f( std::auto_ptr< T > t_ );
I think in five years, this idiom will still exist as well. Moreover,
it's already part of the standard.
Let's say std::dumb_ptr<> were added to the standard. The above could
be replaced by:
void f( std::dumb_ptr< T const > t_ );
the only difference being the memory management of t_ at the call site
(unless, of course, within f, t_ is passed into another function).
What is necessary to change it to:
void f( std::c_in< T > t_ );
My guess is that the function definition would have to change as well no
matter what since it's now not using pointer notation.
Noel