"Eric Niebler" wrote > I agree that for the DLs, moving the definitions closer to the terms improves > the situation. I can only assume others haven't expressed an opinion because > they don't really care.
IMO This type of design is best left to the unified vision of one person, or failing that a small group. Part of my reason for using Quickbook is so that I dont need to worry about it ;-) I am finding the time spent on UI design minutiae interesting, in my capacity as a researcher on a C++ standard GUI. There are quite good parallels between one approach to GUI design and using Quickbook . In Quickbook I am provided with a relatively small set of UI entities. Section, Table etc that still give me a lot of expressive power. Its not really my buiness to reason about exactly how the entities will be rendered so long as they fulfill minimal expectations. Similarly a C++ GUI should consist in a small set of UI entities with some minimally defined behaviour beyond which I shouldnt reason about them. I think that could be the basis of my C++ GUI standardisation proposal ;-) regards Andy Little ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
