incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: svn commit: r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: include/rw/_tuple.h include/tuple tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp tests/utilities/20.tuple.h tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers.cpp
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:30:15 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:10 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x: 
> include/rw/_tuple.h include/tuple 
> tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 
> tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp 
> tests/utilities/20.tuple.h tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers.cpp
> 
...
> > 
> > I think the commented out parameter name should be removed. 
> I don't see
> > this in existing code, and I personally find it a bit distracting.
> 
> I agree. Without a name, it's obvious that the parameter
> is unused.

Examples in existing code:

The run_test() function in tests/containers/23.vector.cons.cpp.
Lines 56-64 in tests/containers/23.deque.modifiers.cpp.
The __rw_smanip member functions in include/iomanip.

Who did all that?  Not me.  :)  I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Anyone care to search for all such cases and make it all consistent?

Brad.

Mime
View raw message