From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-11 12:49:04
----- Original Message -----
From: "William E. Kempf" <wekempf_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
> I like what this is sounding like, but think I have a few more things to
> say. Before I do so, however, I'd like to see precisely what the no
> interface looks like. You don't have to repeat the semantic descriptions,
> just show us the public interface.
I'm working on it.
> There are a few things you've said
> here that aren't totally clear with out this. For instance, does
> "uninitialize()" become "reset()"?
> What about the issue of
I'm working on it...
I'm also thinking abut the lack of assignment as you suggested.
(There is a very good chance that I end up entirely adopting your
interface.. but I'm considering things one by one)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk