Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
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?
Nope.
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.
Sure it is. http://boost-consulting.com/boost/libs/parameter/doc/html/index.html#forward... clearly shows it.
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.
The foregoing section has the last argument passed by const reference. Then we say it's an out parameter, so ...That means the five-argument depth_first_search overload should really take its final argument by non-const reference. Then we say On the other hand, ... there must be a depth_first_search overload taking its argument by const reference. Okay, I understand why that phrasing, followed by The simplest solution in this case is to add another overload: and the example taking a non-const reference is confusing. I'll shuffle things around. Thanks. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com