David Abrahams wrote:
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> writes:
But the latter doesn't look like a "use" of function_type_signature at all! Anyway, don't clarify your meaning for mehere; propose a documentation fix. Just look very carefully at the words you used (like "use," "primary interface," "white box," etc.), and consider how they might be (mis)interpreted by someone who doesn't already know what you're talking about.
It should state that 'function_type_signature' is used to implement all the other inspection components (it is very important to give the reader this insight, I figure).
That's an implementation detail. How could it possibly matter to the reader?
It's an implicit explanation for many aspects of this interface. But I agree -- it would be better not to say it in terms of implementation details. Still, it's important to highlight here is some redundancy... I'll give it another try: 'function_type_signature' can be used to achieve similar functionality as provided by the decomposition components. < Maybe need an example, here ? - I have some objections providing examples for non-recommended use, though. > This application, however, is not recommended (*), because there is no implied assertion that its template argument really is a function type and because its type members form a less expressive interface for decomposistion. (*) It can be an opportunity for optimization in heavily repetitive situations to reduce the number of template instantiations required. I'm currently unsure if this is satisfactory. I'll have to re-read it later, not immediately after writing, to at least get a vague idea. Thanks, Tobias