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

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-21 10:43:10

>From: "Paul Mensonides" <pmenso57_at_[hidden]>

> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>
> > It may not be about "good vs bad" but whether it strikes the right
> > balance, or a number of other things.  My point is that its too early
> > to tell since we're not looking at a design, and showing up with the
> > attitude that Boost is somehow predisposed against a policy-based
> > smart pointer design is self-defeating.
>
> That was never my point, nor do I think it was Andrei's.  I think Andrei's
> point was more along the lines of, "just because _you_ don't need it
doesn't
> mean that somebody else doesn't."  Which, is greatly coincidental with the
> whole MPL thing and therefore amusing. ;)

I also made a similar comment, earlier in this thread. However, there may be
some differences between pbsm's and MPL. Some people may be concerned about
the number of options available in a pbsm, not wanting to overload the user
with options, or the user having to understand the implications of the
various options. In the case of MPL, it was more about generalising the
design, to work on sequences, rather than specific containers. There were no
new parameters to pass - it all had to do with how the containers/sequences
are specified.

Regards,

Terje