Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest in BGL v2?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-31 15:27:27

At Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:43:52 -0500,
Andrew Sutton wrote:
> 
> >> I will say that our design does take a slightly more object-oriented
> >> approach (g.size(), for example), but that hardly precludes
> >> adaptation. Adaptors would have to be written as classes, but that
> >> shouldn't be a big deal.
> >
> > I think you underestimate the cost of adaptation-via-wrapper and urge
> > you to stick with free functions unless you have a really good reason
> > to do otherwise.
> 
> It's a balancing act. Operations that we know are being used in
> generic libraries typically are get free functions

IMO it should be: "operations that are used in generic algorithms get
free functions."

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com