From: Tobias Schwinger (tschwinger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-15 04:58:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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
It's an implicit explanation for many aspects of this interface. But I agree --
it would be better not to say it in terms of implementation details. Still, it's
important to highlight here is some redundancy...
I'll give it another try:
'function_type_signature' can be used to achieve similar functionality as
provided by the decomposition components.
< Maybe need an example, here ? - I have some objections providing examples for
non-recommended use, though. >
This application, however, is not recommended (*), because there is
no implied assertion that its template argument really is a function type
and because its type members form a less expressive interface for
(*) It can be an opportunity for optimization in heavily repetitive
situations to reduce the number of template instantiations required.
I'm currently unsure if this is satisfactory. I'll have to re-read it later, not
immediately after writing, to at least get a vague idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk