19 Nov
2017
19 Nov
'17
10:53 p.m.
On 11/19/17 2:38 PM, Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:
From looking at the proposed implementation and one small sentence
I think it becomes a little clearer if you read the linked PR's motivation.
Hmmm - I'm pretty sure I read that. On the paper I read, the third section I read is: "Motivation: Composite objects". That's the end of it. I guess that's OK for a standards proposal, but I think that Boost users expect more complete motivation and justification. Examples are helpful here. If it's better explained, one is likely to get more people willing to review it - which is better all around. BTW - our custom is bottom posting here. Robert Ramey