From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-09-03 18:50:47
> It is a strange point of view that sees type safety as overkill -- the
> "only thing" indeed! I would suggest that we keep type safety until
> someone can prove it is irrelevant -- and I mean prove, not these
> unenforceable conventions of "people should compile like so".
That's not what type safety means in the usual sense.
> Usually a simple component is better than one that tries to "do everything"
> Indeed, and we should also avoid "do nothing" or "do not quite the
> right thing" components.
It does exactly the right thing for the applications it targets...
But okay, maybe I'm overreacting to your suggestion. It might in fact be an
improvement, but after so many (IMO misguided) tweaks to this simple,
functional component a good suggestion will get lost in the noise.
I don't have a strong position against what Kevlin is proposing.
I fear a poor compiler will generate extra code, and it will be slightly
slower. I fear even a good compiler may generate extra RTTI information.
These concerns are not outweighed by the desire to see the tweaking stop...
at least for a while.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk