Subject: Re: bool accepted == true ? (was Re: Abi string class)
From: Mike Nordell (tamlin@algonet.se)
Date: Thu Feb 01 2001 - 18:53:00 CST
Thomas Fletcher wrote:
> I think that re-evaluating our position is fine, but I don't think that
> this switch to deciding that all of a sudden wham-o namespaces, templates
> and any or all of the other "advanced" (all in perspective) features
> are required or are needed.
You are right, it's just too easy for the discussion to take these turns
since they're all more-or-less connected.
> I believe that you should look at using a tool when that tool is required.
And that's why I proposed the re-evaluation of bool. That tool has actually
been required for some time now (IIRC I had an uninitialized-variables
series around May-2000, changing my local AW to use the real bool type
helped me find those buggers). The other stuff just kinda' tagged along and
aren't really that important in comparison, and is alo not part of my
proposal. Well, except for maybe auto_ptr, mem_ptr, vector, set, map,
for_each and tranform... (just kiddin')
> I don't really want to have us only use half of one
> thing or half of another since halfs tend to fall apart and get
> really messy.
Are we using even 20% of C++? :-)
> This might make the entry level for project participation
> prohibitive, or at the least a little more daunting for "beginners".
That's a good point, and perhaps also a reson to not use even the simplest
of templates. Unfortunately this at the same time this means we're going to
continue to not write type-safe code, and it continues to display to those
"beginners" bad programming practices which they're probably going to have a
hard time to un-learn. It's a two sided sword that I'm glad I'm not holding.
/Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 19:34:13 CST