David Abrahams wrote:
> Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> IMO the rules that allow you to do things like leave out a nullary
>>> template's argument list when the template body doesn't look like an
>>> argument list
>> This can be removed. I agree.
>>
>>> and combining simple argument separators with ".."
>>> separators are confusing at best and don't provide real utility. I
>>> think we should avoid such syntax quirks.
>> Those are there to provide backward compatibility.
>
> See my other message Re: supporting old syntax quirks.
Alas, not in this case. It's too fundamental. The syntax
is intrinsic to quickbook. For example:
[stuff a b c d]
what are the arguments of stuff?
Now, how about this:
[para The quick brown fox]
??
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
