On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Thomas Heller <thom.heller@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 27, 2011 05:38:23 PM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Thomas Heller <thom.heller@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, March 26, 2011 11:19:46 PM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
Hello all,
I am updating Boost.Local docs and I could use a some help in getting the Alternatives section right
http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost_local...
I would really like to see the first row removed ... All alternatives you describe are using C++ syntax ... I know what you mean.
But
all the examples use regular C++ syntax.
I don't think think that Boost.Lambda and Boost.Phoenix use the usual C++ syntax to program the "function" body.
Usual is just a point of view.
Yes, "usual" it's just a point of you. I can add a footnote stating just that.
If you suggest a text different than "Program body using C++ syntax" I am happy to consider changing the title of the row but I think the row itself should remain there.
This row indicates if the "function" body is programmed using the C++ syntax that programmers normally use to program C++ function bodies (and not other C++ constructs).
Well, still misleading. It doesn't make it invalid or "unusual" C++ syntax.
We had this discussion before ... It is valid and legal C++. Both in syntax and semantic. The difference is that you need some extra function calls, pay attention to some oddities etc. with phoenix and lambda. But it stays valid C++ syntax.
Yes, of course it's all valid C++ since it compiles. I can also add that to the footnote.
Another thing what i really wonder is: You write that local classes can not be passed as a template parameter. I don't really get the difference between the local class and Boost.Local. What about this: ... http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/local/libs/local/doc/html/boost_local...
... doesn't really tell me anything, too verbose. And scattered with implementations details. A small English prose like text would help here ... probably.
So it works because add has some pure virtual base class as static type! Aha ...
OK, I understand. Yes, I will add a paragraph to the docs explaining the trick. Thanks, -- Lorenzo