From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 13:33:37
At 02:03 PM 4/2/2001, Jeremy Siek wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Beman Dawes wrote:
>bdawes> Keep examples like std::basic_string<> in mind. It tried to make
>bdawes> happy, even though needs and wants varied a great deal. The
>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.
We don't have to meet varied needs, particularly right away. It might be
better to concentrate on doing a really good job of meeting some subset of
the varied needs, and then go on later to a larger set.
In any case, we need to have a way to discourage most users from using some
features. For example, semaphores are known to be more dangerous than
alternatives. How do we direct users away from such features?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk