Re: [boost] Re: [type_traits] fully qualified names

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 
clearer.

> 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,

John.