From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-18 03:11:51
In message <38D200ED.63DD4B46_at_[hidden]>, Lois Goldthwaite
>For classes in the standard library, wouldn't this have to be provided by the
>library implementors? Because they are allowed to add additional defaulted
>parameters to standard functions, or to provide additional functions with fewer
>parameters in lieu of defaulted arguments, a user could never be certain what
>the proper forward declarations would be. Or did you mean only that boost
>headers should have a companion <*fwd> counterpart?
Yes, the latter is what I meant: std is currently off limits for such a
practice, but boost is not. And it is precisely these issues of
compatibility and complexity that made me propose forward declaring
headers as a good practice for consideration.
Kevlin Henney Curbralan Ltd
kevlin_at_[hidden] +44 (0) 7801 073 508
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk