Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-17 08:06:29

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

If I'd had the time, that's what I would've said ;-)

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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