From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 07:01:36
Søren Lassen <s.lassen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:44:19 -0400, David Abrahams
> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> It was discussed in the past IIRC and Philippe's rationale basically
>> captures the consensus here.
> Very well, it seems that I am outnumbered. Non-const return values from
> binary operators are not a bug, but a feature. However, it remains an
> undocumented feature.
?? The return type of the generated operators is perfectly well
visible in the documentation.
> It would be easier to contribute to boost if the programming
> guidelines on the homepage
What are you referring to? There are no programming guidelines in
> corresponded to the actual programming guidelines that have been
> At the moment the homepage has an explicit reference to a book
> ("Effective C++", second edition) that recommends the opposite
> policy, the real guidelines are not mentioned.
There are no "real guidelines." Decisions are taken on a case-by-case
> I have reintroduced the non-const return values for the operators,
> the new version has been uploaded to the sandbox vault.
What is this code supposed to fix? The first things you should submit
are test programs that fail to work because of the things you are
saying are broken.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk