From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-12 11:21:48
Instead of replying point by point, let me summarize your message and reply in
1. My one sentence summary of your rationale was unfair
2. If I object to part of your library I should offer a concrete proposal to fix
3. If I want to understand where the performance bottlenecks are, I should
examine the code.
I'm still not sure what part of my summary was wrong, but I'm sorry I offended
you. What I would like to see in the rationale is a comparison of a small
handful (2-5) of alternate implementation technique, either approaches taken by
other libraries or approaches you tried yourself early in development, together
with an explanation of why they fail to satisfy the requirements. I realize you
do mention some other frameworks, but you don't sketch their
design/implementation or show how they fail to satisfy the requirements.
Furthermore, readers wishing to understand the performance limitations of your
library should not have to be told to examine the code. You should provide a
section giving a fairly detailed presentation of the implementation, explaining
where the performance problems arise.
Andreas Huber wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>Andreas Huber wrote:
>>> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>> - The restriction on event deferral -- one must pass an event
>>>> pointed to by an instance of intrusive_ptr -- is extremely
>> You don't explain why a pointer to a dynamically allocated event
>> can't be passed.
> I could offer such an interface, but that would leave users guessing
> who will be deleting the event after consumption.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk