From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-06 05:55:14
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Vesa Karvonen" <vesa.karvonen_at_[hidden]>
> > I'm not really convinced that this is a benefit. I really don't like the
> > of having some obscure bug, that would have been indicated by a warning,
> > hidden in Boost because of using <...>.
> I thoroughly agree. This argues pretty strongly against <...> for boost.
> course, there are other good arguments for <...>, so by saying that, I am
> not voting.
This particular kind of warning ('remark' by the EDG terminology) rarely
indicates a bug. Examples:
struct X: Y // access control not specified, 'public' by default
class X: public Y // Y used as a base but has no virtual destructor
f(g(), h()); // arguments evaluated in unspecified order
They are more like coding guidelines than warnings. The presumption is that
<...> authors don't need style advice.
If you _insist_ on getting style advice, you may use the "..." form in unit
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk