Re: [boost] Re: Policy-based smart pointers revisisted (was: Re: Preliminarysubmission: command line & config file library)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-18 08:53:46

"Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>
> -Sure, and I expected we'd do that.  Not to beat this horse to death,
> -but I think even that doesn't insulate users from the parameters
> -completely.  They'll see it in the documentation, and wonder what's
> -going on under the covers with all that complexity, and it will be a
> -distraction.
>
> I don't think that is the distraction.

Here I've been trying to warn against dismissing the effects of
complexity, and there you go doing it!  Oh, well.

> The biggest problem with policy-based template classes is the same
> as the problem with functions which have many default parameters:
> it's difficult to set just one somewhere in the middle because one
> must know the reasonable defaults for everything preceding it. 

Not neccessarily.  See my other post.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution