From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-07-03 12:41:07
On 7/3/19 3:36 PM, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:19 PM Nevin Liber via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:41 PM Robert Ramey via Boost <
>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Here you've exactly hit on the motivation for mother of all variants.
>>> It should be clear by now that as library developers we cannot correctly
>>> anticipate the needs and desires of our potential users and at the same
>>> time document the rational and restrictions of the particular variant in
>> That is true about every type in existence. Variant is not special in
>> And if "we cannot correctly anticipate the needs and desires of our
>> potential users", policies also "cannot correctly
>> anticipate the needs and desires of our potential users" either. Policies
>> do not solve this problem.
> Worse, policy-based designs are the result of the expert in the problem
> domain (the library author), unable to make up his mind about the library
> design, pushing that responsibility to people who are less knowledgeable
> (the library users).
I wouldn't put it that far. A policy can be useful when there are
legitimate use cases for multiple behaviors in some aspect for the
otherwise same component.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk