Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 10:42:32


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Edouard A. <edouard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> I'm questioning the degree of assurance required for a new algorithm
>> to be unleashed on the unsuspecting masses.
>
> Exactly the point I was trying to make.

So we agree violently then.
;-)

> To be more precise the novelty of an algorithm shouldn't be held against
> it.

If you define "reasonable assurance" to exclude any algorithm that has
not been published in a reputable journal, with at least 2 citations,
is it still novel?
;-)

Just kidding, WRT the novelty bit.

> What matters is that a reasonable degree of assurance regarding correctness
> and performance can be given. This concerns the library as a whole, not
> just whatever algorithm(s) it may use.

So how do we define "reasonable degree of assurance"?

Jon


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk