From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-20 11:01:39
I think that Boost Coding Guidelines should be accepted, but subject to
refactoring into separate "Requirements" and "Guidelines" documents. The
refactoring should include material from the current "Library Requirements
and Guidelines" page, http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm, and perhaps
one or two other current pages.
Vesa Karvonen's comments are well worth repeating:
The style/terminology of a guidelines document should be different
from the style/terminology of a requirements document. A requirements
document describes what is required. A guidelines document describes
what is recommended (sometimes strongly). A guidelines document should
not use phrases like "is required" or "must be".
In principle, violation of requirements should be grounds for rejection
of a library, although singular violations could be accepted by group
consensus. On the other hand, violation of (a few) guidelines should
never cause rejection of a library, although violation of numerous
guidelines could be considered grounds for rejection by group
The second of the two paragraphs above might be included in the preamble of
both requirements and guidelines documents, together with a link from each
to the other.
Although I usually hate all uppercase text, to help meet concerns expressed
in the formal review, I think the guidelines document should begin with an
all uppercase imperative similar to Dave Abrahams' current lead sentence,
THESE GUIDELINES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF PROPOSED BOOST LIBRARIES.
I don't think another formal review is required after refactoring, but I do
think drafts of the documents should be posted for comments, so that
someone can object if they think a particular requirement or guideline is
I'll volunteer to help with the refactoring, particularly as it would
effect current Boost web pages.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk