Re: [boost] Comments on the thread library

From: Lie-Quan Lee (llee1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-26 09:41:53

At Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:16:31 -0500,
David Abrahams wrote:
> I think you miss my point ;-)
> 
> Which of the following 2 invocations is clearer?
> 
> mutex_generator<checking_policy<checked>::recursion_policy<nonrecursive>::bl
> ocking_policy<blocking>::sheduling_policy<priority> >::type
> 
> 	mutex_generator<checked, nonrecursive, blocking, priority>::type
> 
> Asking people to remember the parameter names (e.g. "recursion_policy") in
> addition to the possible parameters (e.g. "nonrecursive") is no service to

That is a very good point. 

> users. It should be possible to arrange for arbitrary parameter ordering and
> sensible defaults without using named template parameters here. I think that
> it's actually easier to implement as well.

As long as arbitrary parameter ordering and default parameters could
be achieved, the latter is much better :-)  These two are my main
points about the coming mutex interface.

--
************************************************************
    Rich Lee    (Lie-Quan)
                Lab for Scientific Computing
		Department of Computer Science & Engineering
                University of Notre Dame                        
    Email   :   llee1_at_[hidden]
    Tel     :   [phone] (Office)   
    HomePage:   http://www.cse.nd.edu/~llee1/  
************************************************************