31 Mar
2011
31 Mar
'11
7:27 p.m.
At Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:43:52 -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
I will say that our design does take a slightly more object-oriented approach (g.size(), for example), but that hardly precludes adaptation. Adaptors would have to be written as classes, but that shouldn't be a big deal.
I think you underestimate the cost of adaptation-via-wrapper and urge you to stick with free functions unless you have a really good reason to do otherwise.
It's a balancing act. Operations that we know are being used in generic libraries typically are get free functions
IMO it should be: "operations that are used in generic algorithms get free functions." -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com