21 Sep
2006
21 Sep
'06
12:28 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
AFAICT the name ftag should be changed to something more descriptive and more certainly unique, e.g. boost_fusion_iterator_tag. Is there a reason it needs to be so short?
It's unfortunate that this typedef came out from being an implementation detail and got its way into the docs. Dan, is there a way to avoid exposing this in the extensions doc? Anyway, in the interim, I renamed ftag to fusion_tag. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net