Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] program_options easy_init
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-18 03:30:27

Zachary Turner wrote:

> I'm just wondering if there's a specific reason why
> boost::program_options::options_description_easy_init::operator()
> takes arguments (const char*, value_semantic, const char*) instead of
> (const std::string&, value_semantic, const std::string&)? Nothing
> major, but it's annoying when you want to pass something like
> str1+str2 as one of the string arguments.

This avoids implicit constructor call, with associated overhead in code size,
for the common case when a literal string is passed.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at