From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-27 10:40:08
Peter Dimov wrote:
> John Torjo wrote:
>>>> John Torjo wrote:
>>> IMO review is the wrong time for radically better ideas -
>>> for they are often shooting from the hip, half-baked and in need of
>>> much more refinement.
>> That's what I meant myself. Thanks Paul, I was beginning to think I
>> was alone...
> This shouldn't be a problem for a carefully designed and refined
> library. The submitter's typical response should be "Yes, I considered
> this, and rejected it because of X, Y, and Z."
I have to agree with Peter on this one. If there is a radically better
idea for a library, it seems to me that a mature library would have a
good reason for not taking that direction, or else the library author
needs to go back to the drawing board and consider it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk