From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-14 10:32:00
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:14 AM
Subject: [boost] Re: Boost Documentation Templates
> --- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> > I think it's pretty clear that this part of the standard falls into
> the same
> > category as untested code (it almost certainly has bugs). It's not
> > unreasonable idea to think of hacking out any nonsense and coming
> up with
> > our own alternative.
> I agree, but I didn't want to hack it out until I determined if it
> was a "bug" or just my lack of understanding. Which sections do you
> propose we 86?
Well I agree that it's worth doing a little research before deciding. Why
don't you make up a list of questions and send them to Andy Koenig? He's the
guy to know what this stuff means...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk