Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] stl mini-review
From: Michael Marcin (mmarcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-30 19:59:31
Andrew Sutton wrote:
>> Examples are VITAL - without this most peoples reaction is "Huh"?
>> And there needs to be LOTS of examples, and LOTS of comments saying
>> what the examples show, however obvious it may seem to those who
>> write the C++ Standard ;-)
>> What about examples of user defined types?
>> Perhaps discuss How would you tell if something is default
>> constructible? By Test? By examining code?
> I completely rewrote the DefaultConstructible concept doc this
> morning - it's taken 3 this morning. Please, re-review that one page:
> it's here (and it's committed this time).
> Changes include:
> 1. Mostly rewriting the entire concept to get rid of the word
> 'instance' and it derivatives.
> 2. Added lots of stuff about initialization - it's probably wrong.
> 3. Examples.
> There are some other changes.
> I do have a concern that the idea of default-initialized, zero-
> initialized, value-initialized, and uninitialized may dominate the
> concept more than the notion of default construct-ability. My
> experience is that algorithms requiring default construction will do
> so without actual regard for the initial value because they assign
> values later, and so an in-depth discussion of initialization within
> this concept may be out of place. My gut feeling is that construction
> is actually a subtly, different set of concepts than initialization.
> For example, there are sets of types that are zero-initialized which
> is possibly disjoint from the set that are default-initialized under
> some construction syntax. Eh... I don't know. It's all very abstract.
> Again, please re-review that one page... Back to graph docs for me.
Small typo for the Default Constructible concept.
"The folllowing expressions are used in this document:"
"The following expressions are used in this document:"
Nice docs. I hope they get fleshed out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC