Re: [boost] Traits-based design and ODR

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 14:41:45

At 02:08 PM 4/30/2002, al wrote:

 >At 12:05 PM 4/30/2002 -0500, boost-request_at_[hidden] wrote:
 >>I skimmed MC++D quickly, but couldn't find your rationale for choice of
 >>defaults.  I'm assuming it was something like "the safest, most commonly
 >>needed for a wide range of general uses."
 >>
 >>Instead, defaults would have to be chosen as "the most widely useful for
 >>interfacing between libraries."
 >>
 >>Now it may be that these two criteria result in the same set of
 >>defaults.  But you need to review your choice of defaults to make sure
 >that
 >>is the case.
 >>
 >>-- Beman
 >
 >IMO, providing defaults for a policy based classes like smart ptr is not
 >such a wise move. Template typedefs would be better.

I assume you mean typedef templates.

But they aren't a possibility for Boost, which must work with the current 
C++ language, and they aren't a possibility for the Standard Library 
Technical Report, for the same reason.

Thus all the practical proposals from Andrei and others use only langauge 
features found in today's C++.

--Beman