Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
I have no problem with that.
I also have no problem with
[stuff a..b..c..d]
I do have a problem with
[stuff a..b c d]
unless that's just 2 arguments.
Am I still missing something?
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
