Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-18 17:43:15

> It is hard to not be insulted by your suggestions that I don't understand
> the topics, that I am unwilling to accept new ideas, and that I need to
> more books. I have said it before on this list, and I will say it to you:
> would suggest that you do not jump to conclusions about my (or anyone
> else's) lack of knowledge on a subject. I am far more familiar with
> programming than you probably realize. This kind of innuendo accomplishes
> little, except aggravation. It also makes the Boost mailing list a very
> inhospitable place.

Hi, Cristopher

I do believe this discussion became too ... personal. But IMO you are
partially responcible for that either. If you bring an idea that kind of
contradict to common accepted rules you should expect people to attack it
from all possible angles. More specifically: you presented an idea to use
raw function pointer in places where we now used to use different means.
There is no particular reason why it wouldn't work in some specific cases,
but *our* experience tells us not to do it. In long term you lose more then
you win. Now we (and by 'we' and 'our' I mean people that disagree that
usage of raw function pointers has an advantages) couldn't share our
experience though mailing list, so we are trying to communicate it though
references to known C++ experts. It's not the best way I admit, but this is
not exact math either where I could present you with formal proof. As for "
why not provide that variant either?", my position is that we (boost
community) shouldn't promote solutions that in our opinion deemed to fail
this way or another at some point, especially if there is generally accepted



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at