member functions, non-member functions.

From: Ian Bruntlett (Ian.Bruntlett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-18 03:17:35

Was [boost] programming guidelines, prefer free functions

> I don't think boost should try to compete with Scott Meyers or other
> authors of good C++ programming practice guidelines.  Our guidelines
should
> only cover issues specific to boost, IMO

> Thus while the free vs member discussion is generally interesting, how it
> applies to boost isn't so clear.  Have any of our current or proposed
> libraries relied overly on member functions?  Or confusingly used free
> functions where member functions were indicated?

I don't want to trigger an "off-topic" thread in boost.

In the current issue of Overload (No 38) I've written an article discusses
this:
http://www.accu.org/resources/public/terse/overload/MemberOrNonMemberFns.doc

I think that any discussion this message triggers might be best held on
accu-general (see http://www.accu.org/mail/public/lists.htm).

Ian