From: Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) (SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 13:26:35
> 1. is it implementable?
> 2. has it been implemented?
> 3. has the implementation been tested?
> 4. has it been used? how widely?
> 5. is it sufficiently useful?
> 6. can it be specified rigorously for a standard?
> 7. does it integrate well with the rest of standard C++?
How many of these criteria were applied to export? :o) And to illustrate
bias again, why weren't:
8. can it be implemented efficiently?
9. could users pay for features they're not using?
there? That's where policy_ptr might be in better shape than shared_ptr.
If I were around, I would have made sure those criteria are included as
> It's easy to petulantly assert that the people who expressed "no support
> .. at this time" are motivated by conflict of interest or evil spirits,
> but the simple fact is that a group of responsible and professional agents
> didn't find the proposal compelling enough. That's the thing about
> proposals; you need to sell them. There are lots of powerful ways to sell
> an idea, and attending a meeting to address concerns and reservations is
> only one of them (for example, Boost is a brilliant mechanism for proving
> the value of a proposal, and TR1 demonstrates that). Disparaging the
> folks to whom you want to sell an idea is not an effective sales technique
> and, obviously, it's counter-productive since it impairs your credibility.
Hey, nobody disparaged anyone; I took time to explain how I myself am
biased, and how others might be biased, and I also gave an example of a
potential bias. From there to "evil spirits" it's a long way. Maybe
"conflict of interest" ain't the proper syntagm, and "unintentional
bias" would be.
Library design and appreciation is subjective; that makes it hard to
stay unbiased towards a particular design. I know I am biased myself,
albeit not to the point of being unreasonable. Naturally I'd believe
others might be as well, and I don't think I dispense offense in saying
At the end of the day, it's very true: one has to sell one's design, and
that happens exactly because appreciating ("buying" :o)) a design is an
experience that has a strong subjective aspect to it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk