Re: [boost] [intrusive] Interface for hooking into client code improvable?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-10 22:38:07

on Fri Aug 10 2007, David Abrahams <dave-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:

>> That's why I still prefer a more conservative approach:
>>
>>   my_class< policy_packer<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> >::type >
>>
>> so that my_class is the same type for the same policy combination. Call 
>> me conservative but I still prefer seeing a definition like this:
>
> Bleah, if you don't mind my saying so :-)
>
>   my_class<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> >::normalized_type
>
> would be nicer.

My point being that people who weren't worried about this issue could
still just use

      my_class<policy_b<param_b>, policy_a<param_a> >

But that said, this is all premature optimization at a real cost to
expressivity.  Build the cleanest, nicest interface you can give your
users, and if you're worried about performance, then optimize.  You're
not looking at some big-O difference that should influence the design
up front.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com