Re: Large Return values (was Re: Variable Length Field Question)

Brad Stone wrote:

In that case I would think the easiest way to handle it
would be down at the low level so the programmer shouldn't
have to worry about which keyword or combination of
keywords and definitions to use on paramaters, in or out.

It's sort of that way now.  Pass by reference unless you
specifically tell it to pass by value.  Variable strings
then come into play and confuse the matter more.  It may be
a lot of work, but even in the business programming world
there's the "easy way" and the "right way".  :)

Brad: I think you're agreeing with me, which is fine. But since it's Friday afternoon, and I'm itchin' to piss off for a weeks vacation, I think I'll argue your last point. ;-)

As Voltaire said, "Better is the enemy of good." (He also said "A witty saying proves nothing.", but we'll ignore that for now!) My point is that in business, there's no "right way". If a less than perfect design meets the requirements, then that's often good enough. Especially if you can get to market before your competitor. Especially if you want your product to be more affordable than your competitor's gold-plated product. We've all seen that numerous times in various different product domains, not just in the field of computer programming.

(If you want to debate the point further, you know how to look up my personal e-mail address. I'll be outa here soon!)

Anyhoo, regarding performance of large aggregate return values, hopefully we'll get around to improving it, eventually. For the next week, though, so long as the weather holds up, I'll be spending my time digging in the garden. ;-)

Cheers! Hans