Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 20:47:06

Hi Dylan,

Granted there is some disagreement, but from Jens's decision, I deduce
that he finds the library acceptable with either of the syntax variants.
It is, after all, just syntax. Jens has said that it is up to the library
author to decide. This is normal Boost procedure. The library author has
the final say in how he/she wants the library to look. That's one of the
prerogatives the author gets for doing all the work.


On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, mfdylan wrote:
dylan> --- In boost_at_y..., Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_g...> wrote:
dylan> >
dylan> <SNIP>
dylan> >
dylan> > One issue that I would like to re-emphasize is "minimality of
dylan> > interface": The full Open Group syntax for argument reordering
dylan> > ("%1$d, %2$d" if I read my Linux man page correctly) does not
dylan> > appear to me as significantly more clumsy than "%1 %2", and of
dylan> > course, the full Open Group syntax has a lot more features.
dylan> Similarly,
dylan> > I see no compelling reason to provide e.g. both format("xxx", a,
dylan> b)
dylan> > and format("xxx") % a % b syntax variants: Make an informed
dylan> > decision, document the rationale, say what the other option was,
dylan> > and why it wasn't chosen.
dylan> >
dylan> Hmm, there's still a *lot* of disagreement re this whole issue, how
dylan> can you say "it will be accepted" when there's still some fairly
dylan> major interface and implementation decisions to be made? I'm almost
dylan> tempted to say we need to poll for votes for some of the most
dylan> contentious points.
dylan> Dylan

 Jeremy Siek
 Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 C++ Booster ( office phone: (812) 855-3608

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