Boost logo

Boost :

From: timatdvc (timw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-18 10:45:06

After reading your paper, there may not be any difference at all,
except in minor technical differences and granularity. In your
approach, you are specifying individual policy classes, which I think
makes a lot of sense when dealing with low-level components such as
iterators or smart pointers.

My focus was more on situations where one would be providing larger-
scale highly-configurable libraries. I think requiring clients to
make configuration decisions for such a library by providing low-
level policies is akin to asking someone who wants a car to pick the
alternator, starter, belts, spark plugs, etc... Rather, at this
level, a client should be able to make high-level configuration
decisions that do not necessarily map to individual policies, but may
in fact result in many policies being selected. So in that sense, I
don't think that what I described is at all at odds with your
approach, but more a kind of insulating layer to hide such lower-
level configuration details from a client, thereby simplifying the
use of a complex library.

Actually, if one took named template parameters using enumerated
values, this would be a good description of what I used to pass
configuration information to the generator. The selected (or
default) options would then result in the actual policies being
selected. Good paper, by the way! Wish I'd found it sooner. Makes
me feel a bit like I've reinvented a wheel... ;)


--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> How does this compare with what Jeremy did in the iterator adaptors
> with named template parameters?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "timatdvc" <timw_at_d...>
> To: <boost_at_y...>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 9:26 AM
> Subject: [boost] Combining Generative Programming and Policy-Based

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