From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-25 20:10:45
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart pointer...
That isn't what happened. The committee's wiki describes the LWG's position:
"No support for a policy-based framework at this time. This is a refinement
of Loki, but, while Loki is in use, this refinement isn't. We'll consider
such a proposal later, if there is widespread practice and strong arguments
"No support ... at this time." is very different from rejection. I know I'm
really looking forward to the day when a policy-based smart pointer is ready
for standardization. I suspect others will feel the same way when they see
the work completed. But the work isn't done yet, even though it may be
pretty close to done.
> unlimited types where also rejected on the grouns it serves too few people
> compared to how hard it is to implement.
Again, the idea of extended precision integers wasn't rejected. There was no
support for the particular proposal, because "We haven't seen an analysis of
use cases, so we don't know which communities this is important to, what
their needs are, and whether this type meets their needs. There's also lack
of implementation experience, and of precise specification of some of the
operations." If there really is a need, that analysis is easy enough to do,
and the other issues are also easy to resolve. The existing proposal can be
updated, or perhaps someone else will come forward with a different
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk