"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message
news:7dc3b1ea.0301030621.58f363e5@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> That is what I was responding to. The suggestion was to remove
> implementation freedom and replace it with policies. It is very
> tempting to "resolve" controversial design issues by adding an
> additional policy.
> [...]

True.  But then there are places where it's obvious people will write
a few different versions, even if they have 80% or more code in
common.  Consider std::vector vs. any number of fixed-size vector
implementations.  They share the vast majority of their interface, and
could probably share a lot of code, but don't.  It should be obvious
enough that there are places where a resizable vector is better, and
places where a fixed-size vector is better.  Would the committee
ever consider a policy-based vector, or would they be more likely
to consider a separate fixed-size vector?

Dave


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]