From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 19:07:35
David Abrahams wrote:
> The problem of building customization points for generic C++ libraries
> has no really satisfying solution at the moment. Any approach we
> choose will be a compromise. It isn't clear to me why this particular
> compromise should be deemed worse than any of the others.
I have a similar choice to make regarding customization points for Iostreams.
Currently, the user can customize boost::iostreams::read(),
boost::iostreams::write(), etc. for a type T by specializing the class template
boost::iostreams::operations. I'm considering switching to an ADL-based
mechanism in which users define functions boost_iostreams_read,
boost_iostreams_write, etc. I haven't documented the customization mechanism yet
because I'm waiting for agreement on the design of Boost.Range and I think it
would be beneficial to have a uniform policy.
Personally, I don't really care which solution is adopted, but I'm eager for the
problem to be resolved soon so library users can take advantage of
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk