From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 13:51:10
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
>> I don't want to get distracted by the issue of whether the fact that
>> an operator is defined in a friend declaration can be considered an
>> implementation detail. My real question whether I can document the
>> basic_character interface, broadly conceived, as simpler than it
>> really is, and add a note explaining what's missing. I don't want a
>> simple library element to require a huge section of documentation.
> I'm not sure you got my point. I don't think you can avoid
> documenting the full interface of basic_character, including the
> namespace scope operators.
But if they're defined as friends, there not technically namespace scope
operators. I guess I can define them at namespace scope just to avoid this
> However, you can provide a synopsis
> of the class that shows only the class members with a
> following section that discusses other functions that work with
> basic_character to give it a fuller interface.
> Thus, when clicking on the return type of get(), one sees a
> reasonably small class definition and discussion thereof.
> If one
> continues reading, one will learn about the namespace scope
> functions that augment that class' interface. If one doesn't
> continue reading, one simply returns to the previous page
> thinking basic_character is a pretty simple class.
> Indeed, one might write code using only that rudimentary
> knowledge of basic_character and, following the lead of the
> existing filters and examples, take advantage of the wider
> interface and not even notice. Eventually, such a one probably
> will wonder why certain expressions would work and will
> investigate the broader interface.
May be the reference section for basic_character can start out with some
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk