From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 12:35:51
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
>
>
> > I can understand this (and agree with it). But is it really so
> > difficult to use a traits class such as the one I posted for the
> > advanced users?
>
> Every extra bit of complication makes the library harder to work
with. It
> really irks me when I try to use a library which seems to be making
me jump
> through unneccessary hoops. The same goes for just about anything
with an
> interface. My toaster oven has a timer but no lever you can just
press if
> you want toast and you already have the doneness set. Pisses me
off. I think
> it comes from being an engineer. Of course, maybe you can afford to
alienate
> that market segment... ;-)
*laughs* Of course I can't. But I'm still not sure I agree with
what your saying. Even as an "advanced" user 99% of what I need to
do exists in the simple Mutex interface. Only that last 1% requires
using the mutex_traits<>, which I don't find to be much of a burden
(i.e. I don't find using it to be a pain... in fact, I use it in the
implementation today).
What alternative design do you propose?
Bill Kempf