"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:d4k44t$9b9$1@sea.gmane.org... | | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message | news:d4gi2c$2jd$1@sea.gmane.org... | | > In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart pointer... | | That isn't what happened. The committee's wiki describes the LWG's position: | | "No support for a policy-based framework at this time. This is a refinement | of Loki, but, while Loki is in use, this refinement isn't. We'll consider | such a proposal later, if there is widespread practice and strong arguments | for it." | | "No support ... at this time." is very different from rejection. maybe, I didn't mention why it was "rejected" but I don't see any conceptual difference; I strongly encourage people to not write a proposal before they know the committee are willing to accept it. I see it like this: we are very limited in resources in the library working group and we want to focus on libraries that can be used by as many users as possible. And that means a policy-based smart pointer is probably not going into the standard. I think the comments on the wiki underestimates the objection towards the proposal; When Andrei presented it in Seatle, he was left with the feeling that people really liked the idea; so Dave wrote the proposal only to get it "put on hold". A lot of waisted work IMO. We should be more honest about this stuff in the LWG so we don't push away people trying to help us. Ideally every proposal should be pre-approved by the comittee and at least one guy from the LWG should cooporate with the team doing a specific library to ensure it turns out to be what the LWG is looking for. I don't mind doing work for free---as long as it is not waisted; waisted work would **** me off. -Thorsten