From: Justin M. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for a function returning a single param, I agree, normally you'd just
return it, UNLESS it's some big structure you don't want being copied
all over the place, then passing it by reference to a function makes
more sense.
The compiler may elide such
Just to add some to my previous posting.
Also, from a maintenance POV, having variables that doesn't change
throughout a function (or program), tends to make it easier to understand.
Having functions which change their arguments goes rather against that.
One exception is input stream operators,
Terje Slettebø wrote:
The part about RVO was really concerned with the out() scenario, not
in_out(). I'm not sure if passing a smart pointer buys you very much. In
this case, the smart pointer is const but the pointee is not, so the const
in the signature is really just masking what is going
Justin M. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not entirely, passing a pointer doesn't tell you that the parameter will
change, it just tells you that it might, it still leaves you in the
position
of having to track down the function and check it. But outside of
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bo Persson
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: class proposal
Justin M. Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not entirely, passing
