Date: 2005-06-09 22:58:53
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> The '>>' notation suggests an ordering of the packets, which doesn't exist.
The ordering of operator>> is as counter-intuitive as the ordering of
calls to send().
If people can get used to the idea that the first send() may arrive
after the second, they will get used to the same idea with operator syntax.
-- Pedro Lamarão
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk