No man . Vote for No.
syncronized
{
Aye : 1
Nay : 5
}
As I know , in for pass by value , in out for pass by reference , and out is
needed for C++ /even Java still need -> D must keep it .( please anyone explain
Pass reference by Value I really don't understand about term name
Pass-Reference-By-Value in Java ).
In article <c3a9ch$7c$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>I have to say nay, because I don't understand the point of the proposal. Please explain.
>
>synchronized
>{
> Aye: 1
> Nay: 4
>}
>
>"Andrew Edwards" <remove_ridimz@remove_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:opr40tpklzs6zaqn@news.digitalmars.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:58:03 -0800, C <dont@respond.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC), Jon <Jon_member@pathlink.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > synchronized {
>> >
>> >   Aye: 1
>> >   Nay: 2
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Aye: 1
>> Nay: 3
>
>

imr1984 wrote:

>change the score when you reply:
>
>Aye: 1
>Nay: 0
>
>
>  
>
Nay

reference is a C++ thing.  In/out is much better.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

imr1984 wrote:

> change the score when you reply:
> 
> Aye: 1
> Nay: 0
> 
> 

No. in/out/inout are completely descriptive as to what they can be used for, while 'ref' only tells you what the parameter *is*. Essentially, in/out/inout leads to higher clarity in code. The only good cause for 'ref', as I can see it, is similarity to other languages. That, alone, should never be enough.

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Vathix wrote:

> imr1984 wrote:
> 
>> change the score when you reply:
>>
>> Aye: 1
>> Nay: 0
>>
>>
> 
> in/out/inout aid the programmer and possibly allow optimizations. But sometimes you only need an input or output reference depending on runtime values, that's there ref would come in handy. I think it would be nice to add it.

And therefore ... "inout"!

*...and the crowd gasped in amazement*

Cheers,
Sigbjørn Lund Olsen

Ilya Minkov wrote:

> Vathix schrieb:
> 
>> in/out/inout aid the programmer and possibly allow optimizations. But sometimes you only need an input or output reference depending on runtime values, that's there ref would come in handy. I think it would be nice to add it.
> 
> 
> I simply don't get it what for??? We have inout. We have pointer. What else would be ref but an alias to inout????
> 
> -eye

I thought with out and inout the function is forced to set the value, with ref (as a safe alternative to a pointer) you could do it based on runtime values. Sorry, I guess I'm wrong.


-- 
Christopher E. Miller

Aye: 1
Nay: 6

However, I do miss the constant reference from C++.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

As do I, but it's a no-dicer. DBC helps a lot, but it's still doing runtime checks for compile violations.

But I am prepared to defer to Walter's wisdom that the benefit is not worth the cost, and focus on other things. :)


"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c3mdfj$21cp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Aye: 1
> Nay: 6
>
> However, I do miss the constant reference from C++.
>
> Stewart.
>
> -- 
> My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Matthew wrote:

>As do I, but it's a no-dicer. DBC helps a lot, but it's still doing runtime
>checks for compile violations.
>
>But I am prepared to defer to Walter's wisdom that the benefit is not worth
>the cost, and focus on other things. :)
>  
>
I'm undecided about the const issue.  It gets really hairy when your forced to use constant functions (ie in function pointers from some other library) when u shouldn't be and then can't call anything else but constant functions (which of course excludes much of c's stl -> many of which could have constant behaviour).  Many people don't follow the convention because of issues such as this one which makes the problem worse.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:c3n4ol$5sk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
> >As do I, but it's a no-dicer. DBC helps a lot, but it's still doing
runtime
> >checks for compile violations.
> >
> >But I am prepared to defer to Walter's wisdom that the benefit is not
worth
> >the cost, and focus on other things. :)
> >
> >
> I'm undecided about the const issue.  It gets really hairy when your forced to use constant functions (ie in function pointers from some other library) when u shouldn't be and then can't call anything else but constant functions (which of course excludes much of c's stl -> many of which could have constant behaviour).  Many people don't follow the convention because of issues such as this one which makes the problem
worse.

I'll have to take your word (and that of many other commentators) for it. I've never had any problem with const, and I've never worked with anyone that had any problem with it either. I am still unable to understand what all the fuss is about, and I simply think const is great.