Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-31 15:33:29

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>

> Nits:
> * While there isn't a law that requires it, lots of people expect all C++
> source files to begin with a comment line which simply says what's in the
> file.


> * I like a "Revision History" comments. True, CVS supplies history, but
> for casual reading a simple Revision History helps. Or is that just
> personal taste on my part? I don't think we ever discussed it.

Such comments aren't very compelling when you have a version-control system
which will maintain them. If you have to have revision history comments in
the file, they should go at the bottom. One shouldn't have to scroll down
just to see the important stuff in the file.

> * How about adding a disclaimer in the docs to the effect: "Boost members
> spent considerable effort trying to invent a compile time assert that
> avoided macros, all to no avail. The general conclusion was that the good
> of a compile time assert working at namespace, function, and class scope
> outweighed the ugliness of a macro." Maybe add at the bottom so it
> take away from the central description.
> * I had reading comprehension trouble with this sentence:
> To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace
> scope, then ensure that the declarations are enclosed in their own unique
> namespace.
> Possibly clearer:
> To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace
> scope, enclose the use in a (possibly nested) namespace unique to that
> header.

Possibly clearer still (or did I change the meaning?):

To avoid this when BOOST_PRECONDITION is used in a header at namespace
scope, ensure that each declaration is enclosed in its own unique namespace.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at