From: Yuval Ronen (ronen_yuval_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-17 16:55:13
Geoff Worboys wrote:
> That is my current take on it. Single phase construction is
> obviously best where feasible - it keeps everything simpler and
> clearer. But at this time I can see no alternative but two
> phase construction (objects with active/inactive state) for
> some situations.
>
> Are there practical alternatives?
> If so I'd love to hear about them.
As I explained in another post in this thread, I think boost::optional
is the ultimate solution to the active/inactive state problem, so the
class itself can still have single phase construction.
Yuval