Boost logo

Boost :

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.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at