From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-22 15:18:51
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 15:44, Peter Dimov via Boost
> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> > Nothing prevents you from using a pool allocator with a deque.
> And nothing prevents me from using the proposed ring_queue instead. Do you
> have a better point than "you can achieve the same effect in a more
> complicated and stupider way"?
I don't think combining two well-established generic tools in a way
they are meant to be is either of "complicated" or "stupid".
Of course you can always roll out something special for every use
case. But that comes with a lot of overhead of maintaining it
compatible with other components, flexible, efficient and bug-free.
Less code is better than more.
Ultimately the fact that uses are not too niche or that there is
significant value on top of existing solutions are criteria for
illegibility for Boost.
Not that those criteria are very heavily enforced, as we have a lot of
libraries that only target domain specialists, so it's up to how
strongly people feel about things.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk