From: Andrew Sutton (asutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-07-11 08:03:59
>> I've just finished reading most of the original reviews for
>> Boost.Parameter library. They weren't that helpful.
> Hmm, too bad.
They were more about the library than how to use it.
> That's just a default. Please see
Oops... How did I manage to miss the reference documentation? I guess
I need to figure out how to guarantee that I have a sufficient arity
for a number Boost.Graph algorithms spread over a number of files and
ensure that the arity is defined before Boost.Parameter is included.
> Sure; you could use boost::parameter::void_ as shown here:
Perfect. It's encouraging that I managed to find the same solution,
albeit with my own empty struct. I hope this means I'm getting better
at generic programming :)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to spend more time poring over the
notions and details of deduced parameters. We'll see what I end up with.
> Heh, heh:
> I would proably invent a hypothetical C++ declaration syntax (as
> though named/deduced paramters were built-in features), document that,
> and then document the functions in terms of it.
That's why I asked :) I was wondering if there had been any recent
developments along those lines. Maybe I'll adopt some kind of python-
esque model for documentation. Those guys do a pretty good job
getting the point across.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk