Re: [boost] [contract] member initializers (was "diff n1962")

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] member initializers (was "diff n1962")
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-30 18:52:05

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lorenzo Caminiti" <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] member initializers (was "diff n1962")

> 
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:48 PM, vicente.botet
> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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
> the library.
> 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).
> 

This seams reasonable
_____________________
Vicente Juan Botet Escribá
http://viboes.blogspot.com/