Boost logo

Boost :

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-16 15:30:25

Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>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? 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.

I would say that the "dot operator" definitely does not constitute
"strongly C++-like syntax", since several other languages use it as
well, to mean roughly the same thing (at least Java and VB, which are
both fairly different from C++ and each other). So the dot operator
seems to me to have a somewhat language-neutral connotation that most
programmers in general intuitively understand, while the scope
resolution operator smacks strongly of C++ to most people who see it,
I suspect.

Also, the period is used as a stylistic separator in other contexts,
as well. E.g.: 320.555.2839 (phone numbers, IP addresses, filename
extensions, etc.) One would be hard-pressed to find a single other
use of :: outside of the programming realm.


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