One of my primary objections to the current design is the use of unspecified policy parameters in the template parameter list of the main data structures. I think that it is important to limit the number of top-level template parameters to only non-policy parameters.
of course this can be discussed ... i somehow like this explicit way of specifying parameters, but this is probably my personal preference ...
But they're not explicit; the parameters are entirely too vague. If I look at the class definition, I should be able to able to generate some reasonable hypothesis about the kinds of types accepted by the template parameters.
hm ... i have modeled the interface vaguely according to boost.intrusive (probably because i was using it extensively in the months before working on boost.heap). tim