Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library beginning

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-10 16:53:07

On Tuesday 03 September 2002 01:10 pm, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> Based on these two comments, (1) that the library is _almost_ a full
> generic interval library (and should be!), but there may be some challenges
> in achieving the next level of genericity that we can't foresee, and (2)
> that the handling of comparisons requires extensive changes in the
> interface that may ripple through the library, I vote to reject the
> interval library at this time.
>
> 	Doug

After further consideration, I think this was the wrong decision. While I 
still believe that comparison policies are harmful, it seems that we do have 
a solution that retains the essential abilities of comparison policies 
without unnecessary danger. Therefore, I'd like to change my vote to 
"accept", conditional on one thing: I'd ask that the authors carefully 
consider the existing proposals for comparison policies and document 
(verbosely!) the reason for whatever decision they make. I think this issue 
will probably come up again, and it would be very helpful to have a document 
weighing the various pros/cons of each approach to multiple comparison 
operator semantics.

        Doug