From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-24 15:54:52
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Review: Boost Coding Guidelines
> > 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
> > worth the investment. Is there really (or can there be) general
> > about which things should be guidelines and which should be
> > there really a consensus that something derived from the proposed
> > is appropriate? How can we answer these questions?
> Well I can only offer my view on this. We'll have to see if we can gain a
> IMHO anything that affects the external interface could be a requirement.
> Thus we really do care about such things as
> - How files are named and what directories they go in.
> - How classes are named.
> - How public and protected members are named.
> - What namespaces are used.
> - How macros are named.
> - Use (or not) of exception specs
> What we don't care about much is implementation details because these
> really are a QOI issue.
We are not a standards body (we are more like a library vendor) and as such
I disagree here. I want to continue to maintain a high QOI here at boost and
I don't think it would be a mistake to mandate it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk