[boost] Documenting/testing boost::incomplete?
With the addition of the variant library has come several closely-related components such as boost::getT, boost::apply_visitor, boost::static_visitor, and boost::visitor_ptr. While I do plan to submit a more general-purpose visitation library for review in the near feature, currently these components are essentially useless outside of their use with boost::variant. Other components, however, are more general purpose -- namely, boost::empty and boost::incomplete. Since boost::empty is almost trivial, I plan to document and test it as part of the utility library. But boost::incomplete is generally quite useful (for example, in implementing the pimpl idiom), and I think Boosters may employ it often without boost::variant. My question then: should boost::incomplete be given its own libs/incomplete directory and an announcement on the main html page? Any input welcome. Thanks, Eric ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: [boost] Documenting/testing boost::incomplete?
- Original Message - From: Eric Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Other components, however, are more general purpose -- namely, boost::empty and boost::incomplete. Since boost::empty is almost trivial, I plan to document and test it as part of the utility library. But boost::incomplete is generally quite useful (for example, in implementing the pimpl idiom), and I think Boosters may employ it often without boost::variant. My question then: should boost::incomplete be given its own libs/incomplete directory and an announcement on the main html page? Any input welcome. I think both boost::empty and boost::incomplete should go into the utility library, because they are both of general utility and are relatively small. But they should be mentioned on the main HTML page in any case, because they can be useful for users. Doug ___ Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
