Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 20:39:02

"Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)" <SeeWebsiteForEmail_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Maybe because Robert was listing points upon which the proposal didn't
>> fare well but that he thought were worthy of consideration? You're
>> not helping your case at all by claiming everything points to bias.
>> It just looks paranoid.
> By the way, who was it who just called and hung up??? :oD

What are you implying??? ;oP

>> Maybe, not but it's not a long way from what you *actually wrote* to
>> "evil spirits." Starting from "conflict of interest" connected to
>> lobbying and voting and then proceeding to a suggestion that people
>> are claiming something they don't "really really believe" and
>> "convenient" forgetting of crucial facts, there's a lot in there to
>> take as disparaging.
> Yeah, "conflict of interest" isn't the word because there's not a real
> "interest" there, but rather a mere subjective opinion.

I'm not going to belabor this, but what appears to be an attack in
your post goes well beyond a mere poor choice of words.

> But then let me ask this again: if binary compatibility is assigned
> such a weight on shared_ptr, then why isn't it a concern for other
> obvious candidates in the standard library, such as strings and
> vectors?

I don't know that binary compatibility *is* "assigned such a weight on
shared_ptr," but let's suppose for a minute that it is. Maybe you're
looking at it the wrong way. It might be assigned such a weight
because it's a nice feature that nothing else has, and that can be
used to pass those other things (like strings and vectors) across DLL

> Shouldn't we measure those guys by the same measure?

I don't see why. We don't measure std::vector by its inability to do
O(log N) lookups and insertions. We don't expect std::vector to be a
set, nor do we expect it to act like a shared_ptr.

> Again, binary compatibility is a very useful feature, but it should
> only be assigned so much importance.

Perhaps it only _is_ assigned so much importance. How do you know
what relevance it's given by the various people deliberating?

>> You bet it ain't proper, whatever syntagm means. What the heck's a
>> syntagm?
> says:
> syntagm is one of more than 1,000,000 entries available at
> Click here to start your free trial!

Hmm, not a vert useful definition. I'll try

>>>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.
>> Think again. Your last post was unreasonable.
>>>Naturally I'd believe others might be as well, and I don't think I
>>>dispense offense in saying that.
>> Whether you dispense offense is in the ear of the listener, and I'm
>> hearing it.
> Maybe you are particularly sensitive towards yours truly.

Believe it or not, Andrei, I find I am predisposed to like you and
forgive your trespasses. The fact that you have such a likable
personality only makes it harder to understand when you let fly this
kind of base accusation.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at