From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-06 09:39:22
OK, I agree with Peter on this point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> 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
> > idea
> > > of having some obscure bug, that would have been indicated by a
> > > 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
> > 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
> <...> authors don't need style advice.
> If you _insist_ on getting style advice, you may use the "..." form in
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk