Re: [boost] More "any" remarks

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-13 05:17:32

In message <00e201c04cdd$47c79740$0500a8c0_at_[hidden]>, David
Abrahams <abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes
>I have been trying to nudge you towards a more minimalist style of
>documentation, which favors concise presentation of relevant information. My
>experience (and admittedly, it might just be me) of reading your docs was
>that there were a lot of extra words used to describe something that should
>be simple. Much of that tended to obscure the important information (for
>me).

I agree with the sentiment, esp given that it is a fairly minimalist
class. I will have another pass over the docs.

>> >> The "copy constructor of the contents of rhs" does not seem to make
>> >> sense :-}
>> >
>> >Not sure why.
>>
>> Because rhs's content's copy constructor is of no interest :->
>
>Are you saying that when I write this:
>
>struct Foo { ... };
>any x(Foo());
>any y(x);
>
>that Foo::Foo(const Foo&) is not called by the last line? If not, I have
>completely misunderstood your documentation and more clarification is
>probably warranted.

Yes, this is correct. What I was clarifying above is that in the last
line it is y's copy constructor that is called, not x's (which is what
the phrase "copy constructor of the contents of x" means, ie x's
content's copy constructor).

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     fax:    [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________