From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-05 16:16:24
Janusz Piwowarski wrote:
> Saturday, November 5, 2005, 9:49:17 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>>Huh ? What is 'comment("foo")' then supposed to be, if not a constructor call ?
> Ok, but you don't want to use it. I disagree with placing constructing
> code in append_commend function.
So we agree then, fine. I suggest 'append_comment("foo")' while someone else
proposed to overload the 'append' name, using something like 'append(comment("foo"))'
instead, which would imply explicit node creation, as opposed to nodes being
created by factories (such as document and element).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk