From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
At the risk of discussing the bicycle shed, what about using the scope resolution operator? That, at least, would not be misconstrued by a copyeditor and would be in keeping with C++ syntax.
IMO it's very important to distinguish those things that are supposed to have meaning in code from those that are not. Using strongly C++-like syntax here would be confusing, since these things are not identifiers.
Isn't that an argument against using the dot, too? I presumed it was the member selection operator as someone else pointed out. Also, my point was that *if* we use C++ notation -- assumed, I'll admit -- to join the parts, then the scope resolution operator is more appropriate. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;