[boost] Re: possible addition to operators library

From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-07 16:29:51

On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 19:42:44 +0100, David Abrahams wrote:

> Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> At 11:08 AM 3/7/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>  >"Sam Partington" <Sam.Partington_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>  >
>>  >> Hi all,
>>  >>
>>  >> Hate to sound pushy, but I've no answer on this, were the patches
>>  >> ok?
>>  >Would
>>  >> you like me to repost them?
>>  >>
>>  >> Or should I just drop it?
>>  >
>>  >The code looks OK, but the submission won't be complete without
>>  >patches for the docs and tests.
>>
>> The submission was three files, including patches for docs and tests.
> 
> The only one I could find was a single patch.  Can someone point to the
> message in the archive please?

http://www.mail-archive.com/boost%40lists.boost.org/msg05908.html

BTW: I wonder if gmane eats messages. I cannot find some messages we
exchanged when I was still in the company earlier this day. I will keep an
eye on it in case the problem remains.

Sam: I looked at the patches, especially the doc. I think you should write
some more, as you were influenced from your knowledge. I suggest you begin
with mentioning operator bool() and what's wrong with it before presenting
the solution. Think of new users that potentially don't even know that
there is a problem with operator bool(). Also, if you like, you can write
a brief note about why the "classic" solution I showed (using a private
operator int() in parallel to operator bool()) is not a good solution and
how yours/Peter's is better. All this can/should happen in the note you
added. The note itself should be added to the index at the top and you
might want to add yourself to the contributors' list at the end.

Regards, Daniel