Re: [boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

[Beman Dawes]

At 03:24 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:
>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Anyone interested might want to read the actual proposal. See
>> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1406.pdf
>
>Yes, I found that on my own, and noticed that of the two "mutually
>exclusive designs", the one with one feature was chosen over the
>one with three features. And it seems that the sole justification
>was the equivalence to the metafunction form, as Dave A. states.
>It seems that partial specialization using template typedefs is
>indeed useful, but is it really more useful than deduction,
>equivalence, and template template matching? And is it certain
>that we can't eat our cake and have it too? Obviously, I don't have
>the burden of writing a C++ compiler, but if we're going to add a
>feature, let's go for the gold. It's not like we get a second chance
>very often.

If you come up with use cases, particularly for an important idiom like smart pointers, that would be a clear argument.

But Boost isn't the right forum. Better would be comp.std.c++, or better yet the committee's evolution reflector.

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost