Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-17 13:03:02

Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:


| > If you think it is wrong, while being consistent with first principle,
| > then propose a a new first principle. The worst thing to do, I
| > believe, is to introduce barnacled hacks that comes from nowhere.
| > We need general rules on which to decide, we don't need barnacled
| > hacks that would appear "intuitive" at a moment when we don't have a
| > working definition of "intuitive".
| I feel accused of "introducing barnacled hacks that come from
| nowhere". I don't think you meant to be insulting, but would you mind
| to assume that I'm not just seeing things from such a narrow
| perspective? I could also assume you are just "blindly applying rules
| without looking at the consequences" - but I think you have better
| reasons for your POV.

I did not intend to insult you. Please accept my apologies if you
feel insulted.

"barnacled hacks that come from nowhere" already have some instances
in the standard. I would not like to see them populated. What I
would like to see is a consistent set of rules, not a long list of
special cases.

| I am actually trying to see where the idea of nested scopes comes from
| and what purpose it fulfills. This purpose is IMHO to keep the code
| readable with the smallest amount of code involved and the least
| number of interactions between the names of different scopes. This

Yes and no. Scope nesting implies name hidding, which also means
interactions between names of different scopes.

-- Gaby

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at