From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 09:21:35
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> | > IMO
> | > the more flexible the solution is - the more users it will end up
> | > attracting.
> | I don't agree with this statement at all. Making things more flexible
> | incures a semantic dilution (not to speak of the added complexity
> | necessary to support that flexibility) that encourages users to just
> | 'roll their own' solution.
> | I'm not saying that flexibility or genericity is bad. But it comes
> | with a price.
> I don't think it is unfair to see it as an expert tool and not something
> ordinary user need to use or worry about learning.
I do not know how "expert" it is, but I am quite sure that ordinary user
will find it very useful. How many times ordinary C++ user is faced with
resource (of any kind) management tasks? My guess a lot. And in many many
cases it would be more easy to write a policy for PBSP instead of writing
everything from scratch. boost::smart_ptr does cover a lot of ground. But
it's still incomparable (IMO) with power presented by PBSP solution.
> That implies that we do want it in boost,
> but that it might not be a good candidate for std::.
I think that standard containers are way more "expert". But we still want
them in stl, aren't we?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk