From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-12 09:07:23
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Gennadiy Rozental
| Sent: 12 March 2005 05:20
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: FSM Review
| > I'm glad to see someone actually use a 'conditional accept' clause
| because it seemed like we had an awful lot of 'mostly good stuff',
| > Jeff
| On the other hand ....
| 1. Boost is about Excellency
Agreed, but But "The Best is the Enemy of the Good".
IMHO ALL designs are compromises (especially C++ itself!)
and if we only accept perfection, and reject this (and others),
we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
| 3. As well as rejection may lead to discouraging further efforts,
A serious disadvantage.
| 4. In numerous case attempts to address any major issues
| results in complete new interface/design/implementation.
So what - there aren't going to be too many things depending on it
-- unlike string and serialisation.
| Any users relying on accepted version would be disappointed.
OK if someone comes up with a better, but incompatible solution,
then no problem. Users of version 1 will either stick with it,
with most of the bugs ironed out, or suffer the pain of moving
to version 2 (which SHOULD be reviewed separately).
| 5. I really-really wish somebody spent more time with std::string
| on drawing board. Maybe we wouldn't have as much issues now.
Hindsight is always so crystal clear...
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk