Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 13:55:46

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > At the risk of discussing the bicycle shed, what about using the
> > scope resolution operator? That, at least, would not be
> > misconstrued by a copyeditor and would be in keeping with C++
> > syntax.
> IMO it's very important to distinguish those things that are supposed
> to have meaning in code from those that are not. Using strongly
> C++-like syntax here would be confusing, since these things are not
> identifiers.

Isn't that an argument against using the dot, too? I presumed it
was the member selection operator as someone else pointed out.

Also, my point was that *if* we use C++ notation -- assumed, I'll
admit -- to join the parts, then the scope resolution operator is
more appropriate.

Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer           
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;

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