From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-24 11:44:12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> Last remark: David said:
> "If they are rejected, I will only wish that the formal review had begun
> earlier so that I wouldn't have spent so much time on them here."
> On the contrary, I wish for more time to be spend on guidelines, so that
> month or too semantical guidelines will include most things that C++
> community find reasonable.
I think I should explain my sentiments. Preparing a coding standard for a
company (which is what the proposed guidelines are derived from) is a
time-consuming and difficult job. Because of the nature of coding standards,
the process neccessarily raises objections and friction. I've been through
that process twice in the past 2 years now, and wasn't looking forward to
doing the same on the Boost list, especially while trying to develop the
build system (a major challenge in itself). I offered the proposed
guidelines on a "do what you like with them" basis, and many people were
enthusiastic. "Unfortunately", Boost's usual high standards have prevailed:
the proposed guidelines generated LOTS of feedback before the formal review
period, and later many legitimate objections were raised, mostly because a
company coding standard and boost coding guidelines should be different in
so many ways.
I think I've caught my breath a bit and would be willing to help Beman
refactor these guidelines according to what appears to be the emerging
consensus... but I would like to be absolutely sure that it's going to be
worth the investment. Is there really (or can there be) general agreement
about which things should be guidelines and which should be requirements? Is
there really a consensus that something derived from the proposed document
is appropriate? How can we answer these questions?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk