Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: [iostreams] Major interace changes planned--comments requested

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-10 17:58:22

> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:20:23 -0700
> Reply-To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Sender: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> 
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
> >> Rob Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >>> The
> >>> unfortunate thing is that this scheme makes basic_character far
> >>> more complicated,
> >>
> >> Yes, I was hoping to limit the interface to a single conversion
> >> operator. I'd hate to see someone just learning the library look up
> >> get() in the reference section, click on the return type and be
> >> confronted with a monstrous synopsis. Could I present a "fictional"
> >> synopsis of basic_character, which doesn't show all the overloads,
> >> and include a note explaining the problem?
> >
> > What's fictional?.  The operators to which you refer would not be
> > implemented as members,
> 
> They might be friends implemented in-class.

Sure, but they aren't strictly part of basic_character's
interface so they don't have to be in the synopsis for the
class.  Their being implemented as friends in the definition is
an implementation detail that doesn't matter for documentation
purposes.

Thus, I wouldn't call the result of their omission a fictional
synopsis.  Indeed, the meaning of "synopsis" means you can elide
details.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;