[boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 15:24:12

"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4.3.2.7.2.20030128144419.0229bfd8_at_mailhost.esva.net...
> [...]
> Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf

Yes, I found that on my own, and noticed that of the two "mutually
exclusive designs", the one with one feature was chosen over the
one with three features.  And it seems that the sole justification
was the equivalence to the metafunction form, as Dave A. states.
It seems that partial specialization using template typedefs is
indeed useful, but is it really more useful than deduction,
equivalence, and template template matching?  And is it certain
that we can't eat our cake and have it too?  Obviously, I don't have
the burden of writing a C++ compiler, but if we're going to add a
feature, let's go for the gold.  It's not like we get a second chance
very often.

Dave