Re: [boost] [parameter] Tutorial checked in

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-20 10:01:07

From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>

I'm not quoting much because it was a mess at my end.  Are you
still using that utf-8 Gnus session?

> Yeah, that's about right.  No overload is needed -- I was just
> addledwhen I wrote that.  The problem is, of course that while
> the signatureabove is evocative, it is not the signature of any
> real function we'llwrite.  I guess I could say, "here's what
> the signature might be ifall arguments were required..."  Make
> sense?

Yes.

>> let's see what your version is saying (to me).
>> You say that there must be an "overloading taking its
>> argument...."  Note the singular.  

> Yes, note the singular!  Would it help if I wrote "taking
> thatargument" or "taking its final argument?"

But the last argument isn't taken by reference to const.  Your
current wording is:

   To support an interface in which the last argument is passed
   by keyword, there must be a depth_first_search overload taking
   its argument by const reference.

Since the overload you introduce immediately after that paragraph
makes all but the last parameter be a reference to const, and the
last be a reference to non-const, I'm left confused why my
suggestions aren't right.

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;