From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 08:33:54
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> At 09:44 AM 5/2/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
> >"Joel de Guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> 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
> >> Right now, it is still in the Spirit CVS. Some of us would like to
> >> in boost's CVS in the tuple directory. I asked for a go signal. So
> >> 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 think a careful review of the implementation is required, but maybe
> >it doesn't rise to the level of a formal review.
> Yes, that was what I was thinking. At the very minimum, someone not part
> the development effort should look over the code.
Doesn't seem a good plan to me. You can't find bugs in TR libraries by
looking. It's a TR library if it passes a TR test suite, not a code review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk