Subject: Re: [boost] [system][filesystem v3] Question about error_code arguments
From: Peter Foelsche (peter_foelsche_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-26 17:03:38
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:DF2E67F3D097004694C8428C70A3FD69046934E01F_at_msgbal516.ds.susq.com...
> As Scott McMurray noted, the call doesn't transfer ownership and isn't
> polymorphic. However, using a null
> pointer to indicate the absence of something is idiomatic as Peter Dimov
> noted. From a purely esthetic point of
> view, I prefer not having to take the address of the error_code to call
> such a function.
How does having to pass an address screw up your esthetic view of the code?
Maybe you could start redefining the language with some defines (grin).
I usually try to avoid non-constant references in my own code, since they
are obfuscating the code.
I prefer the clarity of using the address operator to tell the person
reading the code, what is happening.