Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-11 22:11:27

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> Having not used optional extensively, I don't have a strong opinion
>> on which interface might be better, but it's been my experience
>> that objections to the pointer interface seem to be moral positions
>> not backed up by any sound technical argumentation.  That said,
>> moral positions count when they are connected to votes in the
>> committee, so if there's a general consensus against the pointer
>> interface there, the onus is on those in favor of it to produce
>> sound argumentation in favor.
>
> The orginal objection came from Mat Marcus and was simple -- he had
> to support more junior programmers who somehow become confused by
> the pointer interface.

Understandable.  However, many of our most elegant interfaces are
prone to confuse the uninitiated.  I just had to clarify to someone
that the parameter library interface is threadsafe and doesn't mutate
any global state.

> So this wasn't a theoretical or moral argument, but rather an in the
> trenches user report.  As I recall the discussion, he was still a
> supporter of the proposal overall. You might want to try and get
> with Mat offline...

I did speak to Mat about it in Quebec.  I'll let him continue to speak
for himself, though. :)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com