From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> I'm not quoting much because it was a mess at my end. Are you still using that utf-8 Gnus session?
Yeah, that's about right. No overload is needed -- I was just addledwhen I wrote that. The problem is, of course that while the signatureabove is evocative, it is not the signature of any real function we'llwrite. I guess I could say, "here's what the signature might be ifall arguments were required..." Make sense?
Yes.
let's see what your version is saying (to me). You say that there must be an "overloading taking its argument...." Note the singular.
Yes, note the singular! Would it help if I wrote "taking thatargument" or "taking its final argument?"
But the last argument isn't taken by reference to const. Your current wording is: To support an interface in which the last argument is passed by keyword, there must be a depth_first_search overload taking its argument by const reference. Since the overload you introduce immediately after that paragraph makes all but the last parameter be a reference to const, and the last be a reference to non-const, I'm left confused why my suggestions aren't right. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;