From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-02 08:44:05
On Thursday 01 May 2003 10:50 pm, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > * Do TR components need a formal review?
> > Some kind of review is needed to ensure quality, but the process
> > should be simplified compared to a normal formal review. Details
> > need to be worked out.
> As alluded to by Beman, there was a previous discussion between me,
> Doug, Dave and Jaakko. There's an implementation of the TR compliant
> version of the tuple library written by Jaakko and me a few months ago.
> Right now, it is still in the Spirit CVS. Some of us would like to have it
> in boost's CVS in the tuple directory. I asked for a go signal. So far,
> Dave, Jaakko and Doug gave it a go. If a formal review is required, I
> guess I can't proceed yet at this point?
> I await your comments regarding this matter.
I don't see any reason to rereview Joel & Jaakko's new implementation of
tuples. We don't have a policy of reviewing changes to implementations once a
library is initially accepted, and some libraries have undergone much more
drastic rewrites than what Joel & Jaakko have done with tuples. Regardless of
what we decide for "Do TR components need a formal review?", I don't believe
it should affect reimplementations and tweaks of existing Boost libraries to
match the TR interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk