Re: [boost] Submission: Fixed-Capacity STL Containers Library (Re:STLcontainer of fixed capacity but

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-07 18:04:07

Hi Andrei,

> 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.

I understand what you are aiming at, and agree completely with you that
a good policy-based vector implementation is highly desirable. However,
I myself have definite needs of such a container right now, and could
use the fixed_capacity_vector for those now. On the other hand the
policy based vector is at the moment an idea without any plans for a
concrete implementation? Who is going to write one that is optimal in the
near future? Do you have any plans for writing this? If I have the choice
between a concrete but limited class to use now, or an idea for a better
and more flexible class that does not exist yet, I prefer the existing 
one.
After all I need to get work done and cannot always wait for the nicest
solution and don't mind rewriting a few lines in my codes in the future
if there's a better solution a couple of years from now.

Matthias