Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-07 16:07:40

> I suspect a 'better' solution would be to implement fixed_ as a policy
template, as mentioned previously, but I'm not sure we are in a position to
list other policies that we might want to incorporate at the same time. I
don't think that is reason enough to hold this implementation back from
review [or in the same vein, we would never have a smart pointer library
either!], it simply points to a possible future evolution.<

I am not familiar with the internals of the boost review process (other than
it makes the submitters buy rope and soap), but on the face of it, why
invest time in something that you know right off the bat is not what you
want? Wouldn't that time be better invested in figuring out a good design?
Today's approved stuff transforms into tomorrow's solidified lava that you
hate but you can't throw away.

I do appreciate the work invested in fixed_vector, but, with all due
respect, I think the design doesn't shot in the right direction, and
besides, the implementation has issues of which rework tantamounts to a
complete rewrite.


Check out THE C++ Seminar: 3 Days with 5 Experts

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at