Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 10:26:01
At Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:48:00 -0600,
Matthias Troyer wrote:
> > I think it's crucially important to _correctly_ identify the cause
> > of this impedance mismatch, and so far, I don't think that has
> > happened.
> Here is one thing that might fit what you are looking for: all the
> special primitive types had been "strong typedefs", where the strong
> typedef is documented here:
> included in this documentation is the use of the default constructor
> of such a "strong typedef", but those types can no longer be default
> I don't think though that this is the real issue here. The real
> issue is that Robert has viewed these types as implementation
> details although they are important for anyone wanting to implement
> an archive.
OK. Then this has nothing to do with conceptsâat least, not at this
level. It seems to be a simple case of breaking changes to an API
that was documented as though it were a public interface.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk