Gennadiy Rozental wrote: > 1. Copy reference page in a semantics section contains > strange text. Are you sure it is true?
Yes :). Citing the "Description" section: "copy is, in fact, just another name for fold. It was introduced for symmetry with copy_if [1], and because it's a nice name for one of the typical fold applications, that is, copying the content of one sequence into another - see the example below." > 2. Does compose facility gets tested anywhere? It was. At some point these templates were near extinction, but somehow they survived ;). I'll revise the issue for the next revision of the library - thanks for reminding. > 3. MPL contains typeof implementation based on Bill Gibbons > article. Don't we want to factor it out to make it publically available? I am not sure how useful it is outside the library - it's pretty simplistic. If anybody wants it, they are welcome to do the refactoring. > > 4. It would be very helpul if headers defining the macros > include short purpose/usage description. Fair enough. Consider it fixed. > > 5. What is "void spec" noise is all about? It's a long story. If you are working with a conforming compiler, you can ignore it. If not, I will explain :). Thanks for you comments! Aleksey _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
