[boost] Re: Ref documenation point of clarity

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-23 14:38:06

"Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

FYI, I no longer understand where the source for those docs are, so
someone else will have to make the change.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com