From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 11:41:20
"Phil Nash" <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Yes that's right. I believe the two comments go hand in hand. If my
> argument is that "the complexity encapsulated up in the policy_mixer
> we don't introduce too much more into the design", then a policy_mixer
> design that seems "daunting in comparison with MI solution" is not yet a
> good fit.
All I can say is...look at iterator_adaptor. ;) Complexity certainly didn't
prevent it from getting accepted. ;)
> Just to summarise, before you pull me up again for being inconsistent :-)
> personally like the idea of the policy_mixer and think it *could* work for
> the smart_ptr design - but am *moving* towards the pragmatic view that we
> may not have a usable policy_mixer in place in the time frame needed to
> smart_ptr accepted into boost.
Well, unless I'm mistaken, it will probably be a very cold day in a
characteristically warm place before a new smart pointer gets reviewed,
let alone accepted into boost. ;) I think we have plenty of time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk