From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 17:37:24
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
>> 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 problem.
> If they are friends defined in a class template, they are, by
> definition, namespace scope functions.
I guess I mispoke; it's true that they are namespace scope operatrors; however,
they do not introduce new names into the namespace, so the operators cannot be
explicitly namespace qualified. Therefore users can tell the difference between
a friend function defined in class and a function defined outside the class.
As a result, if I document them as defined out of class, but implement them in
class, the synopsis you suggest would still be fictional. That's why I said that
perhaps I should just implement them out of class to avoid complicating the
I think this problem is trivial enough that we've alreday spent to much time on
You've already helped me a great deal. I'm hoping I can get your input on some
more important questions which will be coming up soon. Thanks again!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk