From: Matthew Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 13:11:11
Jeremy Siek wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Beman Dawes wrote:
> bdawes> Keep examples like std::basic_string<> in mind. It tried to make all users
> bdawes> happy, even though needs and wants varied a great deal. The result was
> bdawes> general unhappiness.
> It seems to me that this example shows why we need a generative approach.
> basic_string couldn't make all users happy because it was just one class.
> As with string, the needs and wants of mutex users vary a great deal. If
> we don't have a generative system, we can't meet these varied needs.
I don't agree with that last sentence. If you need more than one class,
it does not follow that the only solution is to have a generative system.
Maybe the right solution is just to have more than one class.
(In the case of strings in particular, it's even a bit trickier. There is
a need for more than one string class, because not everyone manipulates
strings the same way. There's also a need for one specific class that
can be used in source and binary interfaces.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk