From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 07:00:06
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| "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
| for it."
| "No support ... at this time." is very different from rejection.
maybe, I didn't mention why it was "rejected" but I don't see any conceptual
I strongly encourage people to not write a proposal before they know
the committee are willing to accept it.
I see it like this: we are very limited in resources in the library working
and we want to focus on libraries that can be used by as many users as
And that means a policy-based smart pointer is probably not going into the
I think the comments on the wiki underestimates the objection towards the
When Andrei presented it in Seatle, he was left with the feeling that people
the idea; so Dave wrote the proposal only to get it "put on hold". A lot of
waisted work IMO.
We should be more honest about this stuff in the LWG so we don't push away
trying to help us.
Ideally every proposal should be pre-approved by the comittee and at least one
guy from the LWG
should cooporate with the team doing a specific library to ensure it turns out
to be what the LWG is looking for.
I don't mind doing work for free---as long as it is not waisted; waisted work
would **** me off.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk