"Vladimir Prus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Gennadiy, > > Gennadiy Rozental wrote: > > Looking on class cmdline one will be puzzled: what king of design if > > follow? Is it container of iterator? Seems like both. If I remember > > correctly this is how some ancient pre-standard, or RW containers were > > implemented. I don't believe this is kind of design we want to promote. > > Alas, this comment seems non-constructive for me. I don't think that > the question is what kind of design should be promoted. What are the > problems with the current design? Can you list some interesting things that > would be possible if config_file were an iterator? What would be its > value_type? And what will operator++ do on error? > Gennadiy's comment might seem to be non-constructive. But I believe it has some merit to it.
When I look at the Doxygen class reference cmdline I want to understand it's design quickly and unambigously Some other people might do it differently, but for me the only way to do it quickly and unambigiously is to recognize there the patterns I've seen before and know how to operate with. The smaller the number of those patterns (concepts) - the easier it is to the users. When I (and probably Gennadiy) looked at cmdline parser I could not quickly recognize any of the patterns we already know there. This design might be completely justified, but still it is kind of struggle for me to understand it. Saying "I don't believe this is kind of design we want to promote" I would mean "1. Introducing the new pattern (concept) is costly for the users 2. I believe it is important goal of Boost to build on or extend the existing patterns(concepts) used in the standard library or other parts of Boost where possible. This would significantly lower the users' costs" I consider Gennadiy's question to be legitimate(but may be not perfectly stated). Misha _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
