----- Original Message ----- From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
> > [snipped] > > I like what this is sounding like, but think I have a few more things to > say. Before I do so, however, I'd like to see precisely what the no > interface looks like. You don't have to repeat the semantic descriptions, > just show us the public interface. I'm working on it. > There are a few things you've said > here that aren't totally clear with out this. For instance, does > "uninitialize()" become "reset()"? Exactly. > What about the issue of > "deep-constness"? > I'm working on it... I'm also thinking abut the lack of assignment as you suggested. (There is a very good chance that I end up entirely adopting your interface.. but I'm considering things one by one) Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
