From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-21 10:14:39
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Friday 19 September 2003 05:45 pm, Edward Diener wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> Well, you're not the only one that wants this capability :) Herb
>>> Sutter wrote an article on function, and that was his main
>> Yes, I read it. I was also under the impression that some work was
>> being done to distinguish boost::functions but maybe I heard it
> We've still not found any solutions that really work.
>> Essentially then you have added one more connect for front_or_back
>> and added another parameter at the end.
> Lexically speaking, yes. I'm concerned about the potential confusion
> when we have two very similar concepts used in the same function. But
> I guess we won't know unless we put it in and get lots of user
> questions about it (or, we leave it out and someone asks if they can
> do it...).
I believe you are underestimating programmers. If the doc explains it,
programmers should understand it easily. The doc only needs to explain that
the order is group first and then ifo in the group. Also that front_or_back
refers to the group. If you drop ifo, and just go with fifo always, then
there is even less to know.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk