From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-29 09:09:24
Alexander Nasonov <alnsn-mycop_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> How does that help with your own sequence? It seems to me that (given
>> a conforming compiler), the concept docs should be sufficient.
I'm not saying the docs are as complete as they should be, but...
> I see this in code but not in the documentation:
> 1. Sequence tag
You don't need sequence tags if you have partial specialization. It
*is* convenient, though.
> 2. You can specialize erase_traits or erase
You can always specialize. Though I guess it's of marginal morality
to do that on built-in types like functions.
> 3. Default version of erase uses clear and push_front => it's enough to
> specialize push_front_traits and clear_traits if you want erase for
> your-own sequence
Yes, that's another _convenience_ you can't take advantage of without
> If it's just an implementation detail I give up but I would like
> ExtensibleSequence concept to be open.
I don't understand what you're asking for here.
Would you like to propose a patch for the MPL docs?
>> Would you like to propose a patch for the current CVS tuples?
> Aleksey almost did it:
Would you like to make it complete?
The MPL docs should be better than they are. They're getting there,
slowly, but it would sure help if people who have discovered the inner
secrets would contribute them back in appropriate form.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk