Re: [boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 17:18:27

At 03:24 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
 >"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.

If you come up with use cases, particularly for an important idiom like 
smart pointers, that would be a clear argument.

But Boost isn't the right forum. Better would be comp.std.c++, or better 
yet the committee's evolution reflector.

--Beman