On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:44 AM, Thomas Heller wrote:
On Monday, March 28, 2011 04:51:42 AM Lorenzo Caminiti wrote:
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: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.
Maybe "Program body using regular C++ statements" is better suited.
That's what came to my mind too - it's statement syntax versus expression syntax, right? Phoenix has pseudo-statements but they're still in expression syntax. Fun stuff, Gordon