Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] member initializers (was "diff n1962")
From: Lorenzo Caminiti (lorcaminiti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-30 13:39:16
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM, vicente.botet
> I think all the stuff needed to implement it is more confusing than useful. At the end what is the real problem with base-init > member-init > pre?
I have never experienced a real problem with base-init > member-init > pre.
I will play with this feature a bit more in the next development round
of the library. However, currently I am thinking to:
1) Leave base-init > member-init > pre.
2) Document 1) over pre > base-init > member-init as a limitation of
3) Document that eventually the library could support base-init > pre
> member-init (so if someone finds a real use case for it, I might
consider to implement it in the future).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk