RE: [boost] Submission: typelist

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 10:58:21

At 07:21 PM 11/28/2001, Jeff Garland wrote:

 >>In addition, I think it is not good to make gratuitous changes to Loki.
 >>It is well documented and has a growing user base. The names in loki
 >>ring bells to C++ programmers. So for example if we don't find a
 >>clearly better name for int2type and type2type I would suggest we
 >>keep them the same.
 >
 >This, I think, is the most important point.  I would add my voice to
 >several others that have said that being able to point to detailed 
library
 >documentation is essential.  If you make too many changes then it will
 >be difficult to map from MC++D to the boost versions. There would be
 >something to be said for cutting thru all of this, slapping "namespace
 >boost" around the Loki source, working on getting it to compile on more
 >platforms, and putting together html docs as phase 1.  Then phase 2 could
 >be to gradually combine / refactor Loki and Boost libraries.

While I have sympathy for trying to preserve names and other features of 
existing libraries when there are no clearly better alternatives, in 
general we don't want to give up our "peer-review" responsibilities.

The concept of "peer-review" is central to Boost.  We aren't living up to 
our ideals if we just rubber stamp a library when Boost members have 
serious reservations about it.

If it is an issue of implementation internals, then the "detail" namespace 
and similar mechanisms can be used by a library author to shield techniques 
which otherwise are problematic.  But for public interfaces, we really want 
to tread carefully when there is serious disagreement.  We don't always 
have to convince everyone that one particular way is best, but we would 
like to reach a point where all the technical issues are well understood, 
and there is a clear statement of the pros and cons of each approach.

--Beman