Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
I think was the motivation. I had a user that called a constructor:
cons( list_of(3)(5), 4, 5 );
he wanted to pass 3 arguments, but only one was passed.
Jon Willesen wrote:
You got it backwards -- your example *does* pass three arguments.
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Not before I removed operator,() from the class returned by list_of().
That was my point.
Please see the attached program built with boost 1_32_0 which *does* have the comma operator. On both msvc 7.1 and g++ 3.4.2 it outputs: calling cons(list_of(3)(5), 4, 5) cons 3 calling cons( (list_of(3)(5), 4, 5) ) cons 1
So pick your medicine: reintroduce it to satisfy your program and break his or leave it as it is to break yours.
The above demonstrates his program won't break in the way you describe. The danger I was thinking of lies in passing more arguments than intended, not fewer.
I think having that operator,() in the first release was a mistake.
Because of the above results, I'm not convinced of that yet. But if you really want to keep the comma operator out, the list_of documentation needs to be updated. -- Jon