>From: "Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It may not be about "good vs bad" but whether it strikes the right > > balance, or a number of other things. My point is that its too early > > to tell since we're not looking at a design, and showing up with the > > attitude that Boost is somehow predisposed against a policy-based > > smart pointer design is self-defeating. > > That was never my point, nor do I think it was Andrei's. I think Andrei's > point was more along the lines of, "just because _you_ don't need it doesn't > mean that somebody else doesn't." Which, is greatly coincidental with the > whole MPL thing and therefore amusing. ;)
I also made a similar comment, earlier in this thread. However, there may be some differences between pbsm's and MPL. Some people may be concerned about the number of options available in a pbsm, not wanting to overload the user with options, or the user having to understand the implications of the various options. In the case of MPL, it was more about generalising the design, to work on sequences, rather than specific containers. There were no new parameters to pass - it all had to do with how the containers/sequences are specified. Regards, Terje _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
