Re: [Boost-docs] stl mini-review

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] stl mini-review
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-31 14:42:54

> Andrew,
> It just occurred to me that it might help your work if you refer to
> and
> Cheers,

I have been - at least the utilities draft. I actually had the
concept code in the docs at one time, but took it out because it was
a little distracting. However, some of the concepts in the document
are creeping into my work - the Destructible concept, for example.

I guess one could argue that the Boost standard docs _should_ target C
++-0x and include reference material for rvalue references, move
semantics, auto types, range-based loops, etc. It wasn't my intention
when I started, but it might be a worthwhile effort. My concern is
that writing reference docs for C++0x is kind of a moving target. I'm
just not sure how rapid it's gyrating :) On the other hand, we
wouldn't have to rewrite all the docs in a couple years time.

What do you think? Focus on what is and what's been, or start looking
further ahead. It's certainly possible to flag certain features,
requirements, etc. with some kind of "Warning! You're compiler may
not accept this" tag.

Andrew Sutton

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC