Re: [boost] [config] Positive feature macros, r2

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Positive feature macros, r2
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-26 21:22:47

On 1/26/2018 1:03 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> 
>> Of course if we decide to follow Peter's suggestion and make the 
>> change, it is, as always, who is going to do the work. It would be 
>> ridiculous to lay this all on John. I am volunteering to help if 
>> needed, and I imagine Peter would also, so it would be a matter of 
>> finding those people with the time to make this happen if we decided 
>> to do it.
>>
> 
> I think that since this is effectively Config.v2 we're talking about 
> here, and since I have absolutely no time for this anyway, then if it's 
> decided that this is the way forward, it would be better if the 
> maintenance baton were handed on to someone else at this point: BTW this 
> is absolutely not me "chucking my toys out of the pram", just a 
> realistic assessment that I have neither time nor much inclination for 
> this at this time.  I would obviously try and provide constructive 
> criticism / help as I can.  I'm also frankly amazed that the design has 
> worked as well as it has for so long - there's an awful lot of hard one 
> knowledge encoded in the Config headers, and I hope that can be retained.

I hope you do realize that my own comments are not even remotely a 
criticism as to how well config has worked or your incredible job at 
keeping it as good as it has been. Nor do I think, from what I know of 
config, that the actual design logic of config has to change. But it may 
be that I am not seeing the many complications that you foresee.

> 
> BTW, if we're looking at a redesign, and potentially a lot of churn in 
> client code, I think I'd like to see at least a mini-review before any 
> change:Â  Boost.Config is so central to everything and the effects of 
> substantive change potentially so damaging if we get wrong, that some 
> extra-special caution is required in this particular case IMO.

I hear that. I think that is why Peter's suggestion, which may have been
considered in general before as an idea, has never seriously been 
considered in actuality. Getting it right must be perfect, else the rest 
of Boost will be greatly messed up.

> 
> Best, John.