Subject: Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-19 22:53:32
On 11/19/17 2:38 PM, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
>> From looking at the proposed implementation and one small sentence
> I think it becomes a little clearer if you read the linked PR's motivation.
Hmmm - I'm pretty sure I read that. On the paper I read, the third
section I read is: "Motivation: Composite objects". That's the end of
it. I guess that's OK for a standards proposal, but I think that Boost
users expect more complete motivation and justification. Examples are
helpful here. If it's better explained, one is likely to get more
people willing to review it - which is better all around.
BTW - our custom is bottom posting here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk