From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-03 10:15:58
From: Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Matthew Austern" <austern_at_[hidden]>
> > > > 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.
> > We could avoid the problem using a layered approach: if you have all the
> > classes, sticking a generative interface on top is simple.
> Generative programming does not mean "stick a generative interface on top."
> If you have all the classes, a generative interface is simply not necessary.
It doesn't mean that, but it can do that. And when is a generative
interface every strictly necessary? You can always give a name to
every possible combination of features.
> Generative programming, if I understand it correctly, means "look at several
> concrete examples of the solution space, separate the orthogonal features,
Which is one good way of designing any set of classes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk