Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
I don't want to get distracted by the issue of whether the fact that an operator is defined in a friend declaration can be considered an implementation detail. My real question whether I can document the basic_character interface, broadly conceived, as simpler than it really is, and add a note explaining what's missing. I don't want a simple library element to require a huge section of documentation.
I'm not sure you got my point. I don't think you can avoid documenting the full interface of basic_character, including the namespace scope operators.
But if they're defined as friends, there not technically namespace scope operators. I guess I can define them at namespace scope just to avoid this problem.
However, you can provide a synopsis of the class that shows only the class members with a following section that discusses other functions that work with basic_character to give it a fuller interface.
Thus, when clicking on the return type of get(), one sees a reasonably small class definition and discussion thereof.
Okay.
If one continues reading, one will learn about the namespace scope functions that augment that class' interface. If one doesn't continue reading, one simply returns to the previous page thinking basic_character is a pretty simple class.
Indeed, one might write code using only that rudimentary knowledge of basic_character and, following the lead of the existing filters and examples, take advantage of the wider interface and not even notice. Eventually, such a one probably will wonder why certain expressions would work and will investigate the broader interface.
May be the reference section for basic_character can start out with some examples. Jonathan