Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ed Brey (edbrey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-01 08:04:16

From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>

> on 7/30/01 1:34 PM, Ed Brey at edbrey_at_[hidden] wrote:
> OK. (The "ron_" name was the last way of honoring the discoverer of
> technique.)

I gathered as much. That can be fine for concept names like Koenig
lookup (and only major concepts at that), but rarely appropriate for a
programatic name.

> - Cannot work if the compiler doesn't support member templates

For a helper class that can easily be done without, there is little
penalty in leaving behind a few nonconforming compilers. A larger
penalty would be compromising the interface to appease the few.

> - C++ syntax gives no way of specifying the template parameters of a
> constructor member template (unlike any other kind of template).
> depends on argument deduction only. Could this be a potential

It is equivalent to calling the constructor of the member directly
through the base class that the user would otherwise have to write by

> I wonder if the pre-processor library can help in automating this?

I'm not sure. It's definately worth looking into.

> > More specifically, the example should show the member variable being
> > passed by reference to the other constructor, since this is often
> > practice and avoids the complexity of needing the this-> prefix for
> > pointer. This complexity is better presented in a subsequent
> > so that too much new material is not presented at once.
> Actually, the rationale example needs the "this->" to work.

Right, since the existing rationale example uses a pointer. My point
was that an example that uses a reference won't need "this->", and so
would make for a simpler example. (A more complicated example that used
a pointer and "this->" could then follow.)

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