From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:06:23
On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 20:46 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 18:07 America/Denver, Justin M. Lewis
>> wrote:
>> From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]
..
>> Agreed. And when they are necessary I am happy enough with
>> pointers -- or at least my unhappiness is not reduced by
>> any of various wrappers proposed here.
>
> The difference here is, at the call site you still get an explicit
> description of how the data is being used, with just a pointer,
> there's no
> information given.
Yes, I understand that. But I spent many years in purgatory
implementing
and using COM and Win32 interfaces, with lots of out and in/out
parameters,
including doubly indirected pointers, and I just don't recall ever
needing a
facility like this. The problem you are working hard to solve just
isn't
a problem in my experience, so I have zero willingness to clutter my
code in
an attempt to solve it. Your mileage may vary, as ever.
Anyway, I jumped into this thread mainly to opine that Noel's
suggestions
were not, so far as I could see, any better than your proposal, not to
rehash what we have already discussed.