Joel de Guzman wrote:
Docs: http://tinyurl.com/77pz5
Doc bug regarding QuickBook shorthand notation for strike-through in the Include Files table, in section "Supported Operators". http://tinyurl.com/b25hr (I've been bitten by this strike-though issue with QuickBook several times. I'm considering ripping the short-hand notation for strike-through out of QuickBook.) Also, I'm not wild for the names val(), var() and invar(). "val" and "var" look too much alike, and could lead to subtle bugs; "invar" doesn't read well, or it isn't evocative of what it does. Have you considered using val(), ref() and cref()? -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Eric Niebler wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Docs: http://tinyurl.com/77pz5
Doc bug regarding QuickBook shorthand notation for strike-through in the Include Files table, in section "Supported Operators".
(I've been bitten by this strike-though issue with QuickBook several times. I'm considering ripping the short-hand notation for strike-through out of QuickBook.)
Fixed. As for Qbk syntax for strike-though, I seem to agree. We very seldom need it anyway.
Also, I'm not wild for the names val(), var() and invar(). "val" and "var" look too much alike, and could lead to subtle bugs; "invar" doesn't read well, or it isn't evocative of what it does. Have you considered using val(), ref() and cref()?
I like it! In retrospect, BLL uses constant(x) var(x). I tended to avoid ref(x) because of a name conflict with boost::ref. I think now that that is not a real problem. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
participants (2)
-
Eric Niebler -
Joel de Guzman