22 Apr
2010
22 Apr
'10
10:10 p.m.
Chard wrote:
"Anthony Foglia"
wrote in message news:4BD075A4.101@princeton.com... Is there any reason why options can't be constructed with a string? Otherwise I'll open a feature request bug.
This did come up recently on the dev list.
FWIW, here's the thread:
Interesting, but I don't see a final decision. The argument seems to boil down to: Having versions that took strings would be convenient. But for users who use string literals, their code would bloat with the implicit string conversion code. Adding the overloads might be fine, but the maintainer, Volodya, needs to think about it. Sounds like he got busy and forgot, so I'll add it to the tracker. -- Anthony Foglia Princeton Consultants (609) 987-8787 x233