From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-12 18:53:01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rodgers":
> The question is whether we need two sets of algorithms with pretty much
> identical interfaces but different implementations. I fail to see the
> benefit in that. I almost never look at the implementation of STL
> algortithms, and I don't particularly care how MPL algorithms are
> implemented as long as I can use them easily, particularly with MSVC*.
> Can you seriously imagine anyone looking at their local STL implementation
> of std::distance and saying "Wow, all this dispatching on iterator tags
> is *so* complicated, I can't use it. I'll have to create my own simple
> implementation I can understand and use that instead." And is anyone
> seriously claiming that std::sort is only useful because the
> implementation is simple? I don't think so.
Don't forget though that writing and extending STL algorithms is very much
a part of life. STL was designed to be extended. It is very easy to write
my own algorithm. Following a few *simple* concepts, my algorithm
will work seamlessly with STL as a whole. The ease of implementing
STL algorithms is very much a part of STL's design and interface. The
point here is that *ease of extensibility* is a crucial design factor in
any library. That, we should not forget.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk