From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 03:22:47
"Phil Nash" <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> (1) We started out with that "good reason" - to allow for compilers that
> don't do EBO (or don't do a good job of it - David's analysis seems to
> suggest there are middling degrees).
I do not think that compilers deficiency should drive our design
> (2) I argued that, with the complexity encapsulated up in the policy_mixer
> we don't introduce too much more into the design
It seems that in some other post you named amount of code used to present
only sketch "daunting in comparison with MI solution".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk