Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform Neutrality-withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-05 16:50:04

Final warning, Eric: tone down the rhetoric or we will ban you from the
list.

If any design philosophies are being ignored here (which I seriously
doubt), it's certainly not "brutal".
I'd say if anything you're ignoring what Bill said about the fact that the
current implementation is based on the will of the community.

-Dave (still trying to be on vacation and getting seriously annoyed)

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 5:09 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Platform
Neutrality-withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

Please explain how boost users are supposed to maintain a level of
confidence in the safety of this foundation that is aimed at addressing the
impotence of C++ itself, by providing things that were left out of the
standard, when the communities own design philosophies are brutally ignored
by its own members.

Boost doesn't stand to make any profit, so then why doesn't it stand on
it's principles above the alternatives? It seems that upon examination,
boost is going the way of all other open projects that exist. This is
leading me to believe that inspecting of OpenSceneGraph, which also
provides an image of holding high-standards, will prove the same.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: William E. Kempf
  Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
  Sent: Monday, 2002:August:05 4:40 PM
  Subject: Re: Re: Re: Platform
Neutrality -withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
  To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
  Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 3:07 PM
  Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Platform Neutrality -
  withoutreinterpret_cast<>andifdef

  > I can understand the hit taken in the readability of the mutex
  > implementation for "efficiency," but it is unacceptable for thread.
I've
  > read boost's biases and the thread implementation is a certain
violation
  of
  > the heart of boost's principles.

  Eric, I think you're getting confrontational.  Boost went through formal
  review and no one had the objections to the *implementation* that you do.
  More over, Boost.Threads is hardly the only Boost library that uses
  conditional compilation in this manner.  If you're going to accuse me of
  violating the heart of Boost's principles you'd better back it up with
  citations.

  Truth be told, a pre-review version of the library used the PIMPL idiom
for
  the reasons you cited, and it received numerous complaints for having
done
  so.  The current usage of conditional compilation is a result of the
Boost
  membership requesting this.

  Bill Kempf
  _______________________________________________
  Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost