From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 14:16:52
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
> Isn't that an argument against using the dot, too?
Yes. Set in roman type and with caps on the library name it is less
confusable and more like a Boost-trademark typographical convention,
but yes it's still confusable.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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