[boost] Re: Ref documenation point of clarity

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-22 18:51:21

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> This may be seen as a nitpick by I think the generalized one-line
>> explanation for 'ref', as well as the text in the 'ref' introduction
>> should say "passing reference parameters to generic functions"
>> rather than "passing references to generic functions".
>
> If I was going to add a word there, it would be "arguments," not
> "parameters."

I have never seen a good explanation of the difference between "parameters"
or "arguments" when passing data to functions, but "arguments" seems equally
as good. I just felt that the term "references to generic functions" does
sound confusing since references must refer to something and the terminology
makes it sound like it refers to generic functions rather than the types of
data one passes to generic functions.