Re: [boost] Re: iterator_adaptor question

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-02 18:51:16

At 05:35 PM 10/2/2001, David Abrahams wrote:

 >Anyway, I'd like to discuss with the group whether 
backwards-compatibility
 >is paramount. Should we maintain the status quo, crufty-up the design and
 >the documentation to maintain backward-compatibility, provide a 
transition
 >path using #ifdefs, or something else?

If it is a minor issue, like someone coming up with a better function or 
class name, we should try to maintain backward-compatibility.

But if a design is just plain wrong, or a markedly better design comes 
along, or for other major issues, I don't think we should be slaves to 
backward-compatibility.

A somewhat painful (for those of us on the standards committee) example: 
suppose vector<bool> was in a Boost library rather than the Standard 
Library.  We would (or should) remove it.  Not perpetuate it.

If easy to do without messing up other code, #ifdefs might be 
acceptable.  But remember that older versions of Boost are still available; 
anyone seriously inconvenienced by removal of some component can always 
fall back on a prior version.

All just my opinion, of course.

--Beman