Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Policy-based smart pointers revisisted

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-20 22:32:04

On Monday 20 January 2003 09:25 pm, Paul Mensonides wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Diener" <eddielee_at_[hidden]>
>
> > People disagree with others all the time based on their technical
> > understanding. No one's opinion is exempt from reasonable discussions or
> > arguments over what someone else perceives as the correct solution to a
> > technical problem.
>
> In the example I mention, which was the sequence abstraction design of the
> MPL, there was a massive debate on the pros and cons of that design.
> Ultimately, I consensus was never reached because everybody got tired of
> arguing.  That said, the design was (and probably still is) untested in
> real code, whereas the simpler design was.  To that end, Andrei asked
> anyone to convince him with a practical code sample that justified the
> design.  It never happened.  We had a severe case of several experts
> fundamentally disagreeing.  The only possible resolution was to display the
> validity of the design with an example, but instead, Andrei's concerns
> where disregarded altogether, and he was basically told to "deal with it."

Andrei's concerns were not disregarded. I acted as review manager for MPL when 
this discussion occurred, and I considered Andrei's comments along with the 
comments of every other reviewer prior to rendering a decision. In the review 
results, I commented that the usefulness of the iterator abstraction was not 
proven, and that only additional experience with the library would tell 
whether or not the abstraction is useful. You may read my comments here, if 
you would like:

  http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1341450

Andrei's opinion was in the minority, but it was not dismissed. 

        Doug