Re: [boost] Request for technical notes

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-08 09:32:12

This is true, but I feel it would also be helpful if authors could include a
summary, and perhaps references to the design discussions and rationale,
along with acknowledgement to those who have contributed to the 'ultimate'
solution.  Authors are in the best position to do this at the time of
acceptance.

It will also be useful to help fend off patent claims - a side effect of
Boost should be to make it much more difficult for The Big Boys to patent
obvious concepts by providing clear prior art - Less FUD, less intimidation.

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com

 

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Martin Slater
| Sent: 07 October 2005 09:47
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Request for technical notes
| 
| John,
| 
| The best way i found of finding out about boost libraries is 
| just using 
| GMane to get the entire mailing list history and pursusing it 
| when i had 
| some time. Its a goldmine of information about the rationale of the 
| design of the majority of boost.
| 
| Martin
| 
| John Calcote wrote:
| > I think it would be a good idea to provide some technical 
| notes for various boost class implementations. For example, I 
| have recently been studying smart pointers - I've ready 
| Andrei Alexandrescu's discussion of the topic in his book, 
| 'Modern C++ Design'. It's good, and fairly comprehensive, but 
| doesn't cover all of the nuances of some of the boost smart 
| pointer implementations. 
| > 
| > For those of us interested in learning more about the 
| language, and more about boost classes and the rationale 
| behind the implementation - and for those of us who simply 
| don't have the technical background to "just know" the answer 
| at a glance, as I'm sure some of you contributors do - why 
| not provide a simple rationale for adding a particular member 
| function to a particular class?
| > 
| > I'm all for sharing, but I would like to know the reason 
| for half the implementation. I believe this would give 
| something new to the C++ community in a simpler way than has 
| been done in the past - information generally gathered 
| individually and painfully over years of study.
| > 
| > Thanks,
| > John Calcote
| > Novell, Inc.
| > _______________________________________________
| > Unsubscribe & other changes: 
| http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
| > 
| > 
| 
| 
| 
| -- 
| No virus found in this outgoing message.
| Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
| Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release 
| Date: 6/10/2005
| 
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: 
| http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|