on Wed Aug 22 2007, Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, this is my last post for approximately 24 hours (for unrelated, personal reasons). If I don't answer in a timely fashion for a day, please know that it is not because I'm ignoring you.
I wanted to leave off with a few "PS" type comments:
On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Zach Laine wrote:
Could the folks who object to the current design spell it out for me a bit more explicitly -- what in the design is dangerous/inconvenient enough to throw away one or more of the 4 goals?
I would like to see an answer to Zach's question too. I do not know what the major objection is with the "current proposal". I only know that people are suggesting alternatives.
1. I'm extremely wary of turning what is almost certainly a programming error into an exception (std::vector<T>::at notwithstanding), for reasons laid out in this thread: http://tinyurl.com/2ph58t 2. I think the concept of unique_lock is too fuzzy. I know what unique_ptr (and auto_ptr, and shared_ptr, and scoped_ptr) mean. With unique_lock, I can't quite tell. This might ultimately end up being fixed by a naming change, but I think there's an underlying conceptual problem, or at the very least, a missing rationale. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com