Re: [boost] Re: Comments on the thread library

From: Matthew Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 13:11:11

Jeremy Siek wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Beman Dawes wrote:
> bdawes>
> bdawes> Keep examples like std::basic_string<> in mind.  It tried to make all users
> bdawes> happy, even though needs and wants varied a great deal.  The result was
> bdawes> general unhappiness.
> 
> It seems to me that this example shows why we need a generative approach.
> basic_string couldn't make all users happy because it was just one class.
> As with string, the needs and wants of mutex users vary a great deal. If
> we don't have a generative system, we can't meet these varied needs.

I don't agree with that last sentence.  If you need more than one class,
it does not follow that the only solution is to have a generative system.
Maybe the right solution is just to have more than one class.

(In the case of strings in particular, it's even a bit trickier.  There is
a need for more than one string class, because not everyone manipulates
strings the same way.  There's also a need for one specific class that
can be used in source and binary interfaces.)

                        --Matt