From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:20:23 -0700 Reply-To: boost@lists.boost.org Sender: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that this scheme makes basic_character far more complicated,
Yes, I was hoping to limit the interface to a single conversion operator. I'd hate to see someone just learning the library look up get() in the reference section, click on the return type and be confronted with a monstrous synopsis. Could I present a "fictional" synopsis of basic_character, which doesn't show all the overloads, and include a note explaining the problem?
What's fictional?. The operators to which you refer would not be implemented as members,
They might be friends implemented in-class.
Sure, but they aren't strictly part of basic_character's interface so they don't have to be in the synopsis for the class. Their being implemented as friends in the definition is an implementation detail that doesn't matter for documentation purposes. Thus, I wouldn't call the result of their omission a fictional synopsis. Indeed, the meaning of "synopsis" means you can elide details. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;