From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-12 07:07:17
sorry for a belated reply, but here it goes anyway.
> > 2. I don't think that passing line width as construct parameter to
> > options_descripton is optimal. It's not really property of options
> > description. A better design would be do only line_width parameter to the
> > options_description::print method. What do you think?
> But this would mean no more oprator<< for options_descripton!
> Not a real problem but existing code like
> os << desc;
> would have to be changed to
> desc.print(os, line_length);
> If you want i can make that change but the question is do you really want
> (Assuming a default line_length for oprator<< does not really look right to
I think default line length will work for a large percentage of users, and to
make output with non-default line_length convenient we can introduce a new
os << line_length(desc, 40)
which will create a special object that will call 'print' with the right
What do you think?
Regardless of what we decide on the above, your patch is almost finished, so
I've just committed it. Thanks for the work and your patience!
> > 3. Do you plan to add detailed formatting description. If you don't have
> > time now, no problem, I'll commit the patch anyway.
> I plan to do. But probably not before new year.
No pressure, but still would be nice ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk