Re: [boost] Algorithms and Formal Reviews

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-11 20:02:29

At 07:01 PM 1/10/2001 -0500, John E. Potter wrote:

 >On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Beman Dawes wrote:
 >
 >> I've been thinking about sequence algorithms because of several recent
 >> boost postings, and string algorithms because I've seen several nice 
onces
 >
 >> recently.   See below for a string algorithm example (by Jens Maurer).
 >
 >Sounds like there may be types of algorithms.  Maybe more than one
 >"library" would be needed.

If we follow Jeremy's suggestion (in a later post), we don't worry too much 
about that at first - start with one library and then split over time as 
needed.

 >  What is the difference between an algorithm
 >and a useful snippet?

We could start with a few obvious definitions (free functions operating on 
iterator ranges, on containers, on strings) and then let the library 
maintainers/moderators/managers call the shots when a question arises.

 >> One way to smooth the process would be to have a Boost Algorithms 
Policy
 >> which defines what algorithms are acceptable and what aren't.  Appoint 
a
 >> couple of people as moderators of the Boost Algorithms Library (with 
CVS
 >> write access).  They will act as permanent Review Managers + library
 >> maintainers.  They would check that submissions meet the Algorithms
 >Policy,
 >> and then (?) to ensure sufficient peer-review.  Once the algorithms
 >> moderators agree the algorithm is accepted, they can move it into the
 >> library with a minimum of fuss.
 >>
 >> (?) might be something like stick the algorithm in a queue to give 
people
 >> time to look at it and comment.
 >
 >That sounds good.  An announcement that some algorithms are ready for
 >review.  Accept is the default with no action required.  Complaints
 >should be handled.

Or accept as soon as some certain number of people say "yes".  That way we 
still have a bit of peer review in addition to the lib maintainers looking 
at the algorithm.

 > ... a bunch of interesting questions ...
 >
 >Just some food for thought on what "algorithm" means.

My original posting was a sort of trial balloon.  It does seem like there 
is interest.  The next question might be are any of the Boost regulars 
interested in being the library maintainers.  (I said "regulars" because it 
involves write CVS access, and in general it would be more comfortable if 
the person was well known to the boost membership since we are delegating 
some authority.)  Maybe a couple of people might take the responsibility 
together - that spreads the workload, etc.  John, are you interested in 
being one of them?

--Beman