On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:15:41PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:44:27PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > C++ does not have an undef value. Where's your undefined integer? > > > > Nor does it have accessible multi-valued returns - you have to > > > > define an entire class to do it. > > > > > > "an entire class" -- Yeah, so what? It can be as simple as: > > > [...] > > > It's not a significant problem. > > > > [...] > > If you're going to go to that much effort, you might as well just > > throw an exception and have done with it. > > I'm about the last person on earth who'd argue *against* the use of > exceptions. I just said that practicing an "undef" idiom in C++ is > not a significant problem. An "undef" idiom has more valid and > valuable uses than just error handling. Sure, but that's irrelevant. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature