"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message news:d4lgqm$83h$1@sea.gmane.org...
"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:426E4259.4070209@sympatico.ca... | Gennadiy Rozental wrote: | | > IMO | > the more flexible the solution is - the more users it will end up | > attracting. | | I don't agree with this statement at all. Making things more flexible | incures a semantic dilution (not to speak of the added complexity | necessary to support that flexibility) that encourages users to just | 'roll their own' solution. | | I'm not saying that flexibility or genericity is bad. But it comes | with a price.
I don't think it is unfair to see it as an expert tool and not something the ordinary user need to use or worry about learning.
I do not know how "expert" it is, but I am quite sure that ordinary user will find it very useful. How many times ordinary C++ user is faced with resource (of any kind) management tasks? My guess a lot. And in many many cases it would be more easy to write a policy for PBSP instead of writing everything from scratch. boost::smart_ptr does cover a lot of ground. But it's still incomparable (IMO) with power presented by PBSP solution.
That implies that we do want it in boost, but that it might not be a good candidate for std::.
I think that standard containers are way more "expert". But we still want them in stl, aren't we? Gennadiy