From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 12:09:11
> Thanks for all the input. I posted a "modification" shortly after the
> original, noting that I was using types not integral constants, but I
> guess it did not make it out.
Yes, I saw that right after I posted my reply...
> However, after reading the replies, the point I made in the
> "modification" seems to stand. All the documentation uses fully
> qualified names even when referring to types, which is misleading, and
> that is what I was trying to get at (though not very well). The
> rationale for doing so only mentions integral constants, but just about
> all the references in the documentation use fully qualified names for
> types as well. To me, the documentation is encouraging fully qualified
> names for everything.
Are you sure? I just searched the type traits docs and the
integral-constant-expression white paper for " ::", and only found one
occurance where a type was refered to with a leading ::.
Even so, it's easy to be tripped up by this, and with luck I'm going to
rewrite the type traits docs "real soon now", so I'll try and make this
> Maybe the documentation should change? Maybe something should be added
> to say that the '::' is needed for integral constants only and using
> them for types is dangerous? Maybe I am the only one with this problem
> and I should just quietly go away ;->
Nope, feedback is always useful,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk