Re: [boost] Re: 1.29.0?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 14:37:00

From: "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:35:02 -0400, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
[...]
> >Now someone might say that such a modified interface proposal is no
longer
> >existing practice. But the LWG takes a wider view, and expects some
changes
> >as an interface is readied for final submission to them.
>
> But I think many people use boost also because there's the (not so)
> implicit idea that they will have less to modify in their code
> (compared to some home-rolled solution) when the components they need
> will be standardized. What you describe above means that this
> advantage is really nonexistent, no?

It's still true.

Scenario A: people use library X. Something gets standardized. Modifications
required if they want to migrate to standard components.

Scenario B: people use boost::Y. boost::Y gets standardized. Some
modifications required, but less than scenario A.

Or for a different perspective: imagine a hypothetical situation where
boost::Z's interface can be improved.

Case 1: boost release 1.NN contains a new version of boost::Z that later
gets standardized.
Case 2: boost::Z stays as is, when it gets standardized, std::Z adopts the
improved interface.
Case 3: boost::Z is standardized as is, and we are stuck with an inferior
solution.

Which one would you prefer?

> Also, I haven't understood Mr. Abrahams idea about a boost release
> being "something available". I think we should not forget that when
> boost releases there will certainly be a lot of people that will start
> using the released code. If the goal is only to have the code
> available for the committee why not creating e.g. a "committee
> sandbox" instead of binding people with something released in a hurry
> and, above all, not (expressly) for their use?

This is out of context. 1.29.0 was supposed to go out a month ago. That's
the problem that is being discussed.

I see nothing wrong with the fact that the committee is part of Boost's
target audience, so to speak. There is no conflict of interest.