On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Phil Endecott < spam_from_boost_dev@chezphil.org> wrote:
This void* "user data" thing is something that I commented on before. It struck me as a rather old-school "C" way of doing things.
Correct and this is something I replied before. I'd prefer to use simple old-school "C" way than new-school complicated "C++" way, especially if the second one doesn't have explicit benefits. However in case somebody has a really nice design solution, I would give up my old-school "C" way.
If this contribution had been subject to a full review as a new library I believe it would not have been accepted in this form. I see it as a weakness of the Boost process that this has "slipped through", i.e. we have different rules for additions to existing libraries even when they are by different authors and have little or no dependency on the existing work.
As noticed Luke, I don't see why this slipped through. I am actually willing to discuss this and the library is not in the release. Regards, Andrii