From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 13:03:14
At 12:08 PM 6/29/2001, David Abrahams wrote:
>These are the standards I use at work. I posted these since a few people
Even a quick glance (which is all I've done) shows your guidelines to be
detailed, well thought out, and probably of great interest to Boost
I thing having them available on Boost would be a plus for the C++
> They are not intended to act as requirements for boost,
>but as "guideposts to uniformity", for those without a preference in some
>issues and those willing to change. In fact, I think it would be worth
>discussing what role they should play at boost and how (whether) they
>should be presented.
Yes, this is a tricky issue. The addition of these guidelines mustn't
prejudice consideration of a library for Boost. If the developer doesn't
want to change an exiting library or personal coding style, that's OK as
long as the other requirements are met and the library passes formal
To prevent scaring people off, I'd suggest changing the name of the file to
"boost-coding-guidelines" and adding the caveats above as an introduction.
If you put it up for Formal Review, that limits the religious wars to a
fixed period of time. After that people can ignore any portion of the
guidelines they don't like, but folks looking for a uniform set of
guidelines can reap the benefits.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk