From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-16 18:58:20
At 04:09 PM 7/16/2001, Mark Rodgers wrote:
>I feel we should reject this since I don't feel it is appropriate for
>Boost to mandate some of the things in these guidelines. The
>implementation of a Boost library is really up to the discretion of
>the submitter; if they happen to prefer foo_ to m_foo, then who are
>we to argue?
>I realise that this is not the intention of the "guidelines", and
>they are merely supposed to be suggestions, but I don't think they
>will be seen that way.
While I think that there is some danger of people viewing "guidelines" as
"requirements", can't that be dealt with?
* Clearly identify the actual hard requirements in a separate document.
* Make sure each link on the web site to the guidelines document specifies
that it is just that; a link to guidelines for developers who feel the
need, and not a requirement that must be met by all Boost libraries.
* Improve the caveat at the beginning of the guidelines document.
* An edit of the guidelines document itself, rewording imperatives if
If all those safeguards are in place, do you still think there is too much
danger the guidelines will be seen as requirements?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk