Your choice?
-
You could have more than "binary" number of reasons why something failed. An error code can be used to indicate just that.
-
When you define an API like
GetAllItems()
You'll write
void GetAllItems(list& lst)
or
list& GetAllItems()
What's your choice? Which one looks more API-consumer friendly?
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
Assuming this is C++, then certainly not the second since it returns a reference to something that I assume would be local (on the stack -- upon return the stack is destroyed) or a member of the class (violation of data hiding). In modern C++, I'd use
list GetAllItems()
because it's a move operation (no copy ctor is used), and throw an exception if there were an error. In pre-modern C++, I'd use
void GetAllItems(list& items)
because returning an object causes a copy to be made. (And throw an exception if there were an error.)
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
to me a 'Getfoo()' should always return a foo. if you want something to populate a collection argument it should be 'FillFoo(foo fooToFill)' choice of option depends on the details of how you expect the method to be used. if you expect the user to be working with a pre-existing collection or to call the method several times for the same collection then the latter makes sense, if you expect a one-shot 'gimme the stuffs' useage (used only to create the collection) then the former is better
Pedis ex oris Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
-
Wow, the tribe has spoken and you are correct!
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Assuming this is C++, then certainly not the second since it returns a reference to something that I assume would be local (on the stack -- upon return the stack is destroyed) or a member of the class (violation of data hiding). In modern C++, I'd use
list GetAllItems()
because it's a move operation (no copy ctor is used), and throw an exception if there were an error. In pre-modern C++, I'd use
void GetAllItems(list& items)
because returning an object causes a copy to be made. (And throw an exception if there were an error.)
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunInteresting. My habits in C++ (new or old) would be to return a pointer to the list. If managed, then it will persist. If unmanaged, then it will stay until I
deleteit. Returning non-pointers is usually relegated to either native types or structures, but 'never' to an array. For array-returns, null for failures (particularly if they're an expected result) possibly via an exception caught in the callee, and throwing an exception to the caller only if I need to diagnose/handle true error conditions."The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
When you define an API like
GetAllItems()
You'll write
void GetAllItems(list& lst)
or
list& GetAllItems()
What's your choice? Which one looks more API-consumer friendly?
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
VuNic wrote:
void GetAllItems(list& lst)
Why call it "Get..." when you're actually setting the ref value? A Get should return something.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
VuNic wrote:
void GetAllItems(list& lst)
Why call it "Get..." when you're actually setting the ref value? A Get should return something.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
It's like pushing a mug to the bar attender & saying "get" me some beer. Though there's some "set" it's actually a Get. :)
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
I always ask my bartender to instantiate a
new Mug(Beer);.cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I always ask my bartender to instantiate a
new Mug(Beer);.cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Hidden implementation of your optimized bartender.
void* operator new(size_t size)
{
static Mug m;
return &m;
}Hope there were less people before you :rolleyes:
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
When you define an API like
GetAllItems()
You'll write
void GetAllItems(list& lst)
or
list& GetAllItems()
What's your choice? Which one looks more API-consumer friendly?
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
-
I always ask my bartender to instantiate a
new Mug(Beer);.cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
I always ask my bartender to instantiate a
new Mug(Beer);.I expect to see this instantiate sequence in action, live in June.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004