Boost logo

Boost :

From: mfdylan (dylan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 20:28:57

--- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
> One issue that I would like to re-emphasize is "minimality of
> interface": The full Open Group syntax for argument reordering
> ("%1$d, %2$d" if I read my Linux man page correctly) does not
> appear to me as significantly more clumsy than "%1 %2", and of
> course, the full Open Group syntax has a lot more features.
> I see no compelling reason to provide e.g. both format("xxx", a,
> and format("xxx") % a % b syntax variants: Make an informed
> decision, document the rationale, say what the other option was,
> and why it wasn't chosen.
Hmm, there's still a *lot* of disagreement re this whole issue, how
can you say "it will be accepted" when there's still some fairly
major interface and implementation decisions to be made? I'm almost
tempted to say we need to poll for votes for some of the most
contentious points.


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