Re: [boost] [parameter] Tutorial checked in

From: Pavel Chikulaev (pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-16 02:49:29

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:ud5pjfsi6.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...

> I don't know what you mean; compilable examples, maybe?
And these too.

> I haven't gotten around to applying my LitRe example testing and
> extraction system to it yet.
I mean such style of familiarization with library is only for the first time, no 
one ever
going to read it again completely, and complete code of tutorial in one place 
instead of scattered parts is very good when someone needs to remember all 
features of boost.parameter.

> Of course, once we have BOOST_AUTO in the CVS, something like that
> could be used.  That *might* be worth mentioning in the tutorial
> someday.  OTOH, the uses of BOOST_AUTO are so broad that we'd have to
> sprinkle "Oh, BTW, BOOST_AUTO might be useful here" throughout the
> documentation of many many Boost libraries.
Is it possible to add such macro now, I mean even now when we don't have 
boost.typeof in boost?...
Something like:
BOOST_AUTO_PARAMETER(ArgumentPack,color, args[
   color_map
  || boost::lambda::construct<default_color_map>(num_vertices(g),i)
]);
And It will use boost.typeof downloaded separately.

> I only said that I was close to finishing the *tutorial*.
:) Ok.

>> No acknoledgments,
> I think we would like to acknowledge our review manager, but I can't
> think of anything else that should go in that section.  Ideas?
Just curious.

>> no compatibility issues,
> Compatibility issues are discussed throughout the tutorial.
That's not a good place them IMHO. Copy/Paste it.

>> no page for headers of parameter library,
> That's the reference documentation; Daniel is supposedly working on
> it, although I haven't heard from him in a few days.
Ok.

>> and page for "might be useful" headers of other libraries...
> I have no clue what "might be useful," and none of our other libraries
> have such a page.  I don't expect I'll be doing that, at least not for
> 1.33.
The headers of other libraries you have used in your code, and maybe some other 
we still don't know about them...

>> And maybe dependencies...
> I don't think I'll be doing that either.  I think bcp is the way to
> get that information.
Ok.

--
Pavel Chikulaev