Re: [boost] [function types][review] (repost with new formatting)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-14 20:40:57

Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> But the latter doesn't look like a "use" of function_type_signature at
>> all! Anyway, don't clarify your meaning for mehere; propose a
>> documentation fix.  Just look very carefully at the words you used
>> (like "use," "primary interface," "white box," etc.), and consider how
>> they might be (mis)interpreted by someone who doesn't already know
>> what you're talking about.
>> 
>
> It should state that 'function_type_signature' is used to implement all the
> other inspection components (it is very important to give the reader this 
> insight, I figure).

That's an implementation detail. How could it possibly matter to the
reader?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com