From: Moore, Paul (Paul.Moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 04:41:15
From: Dave Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> I am of the same mind here. One concern of mine is that too
> much of the C++ standard library has sacrificed convenience
> for generality, with the result that there are no simple,
> convenient, and _common_ idioms for many simple, common tasks.
Not related to this thread, but I agree here. One of the things I would like
to see with Boost is a bit more focus on "simple and convenient for
straightforward use" as opposed to "theoretically correct and general".
The current example is smart pointers. I can see that there are issues, but
for the life of me I can't understand the current thread(s). And to my mind,
that implies that the issues are not in the category of "basic use" (or I'm
being dumb :-)
Am I not right in thinking that the final state of auto_ptr<> was a result
of trying to be all things to all men? Are we risking the same fate?
PS I'd like to see more work on adding new facilities, rather than endlessly
refining existing ones - I like the recently posted interval arithmetic and
range set classes. More of the same, please!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk