[boost] Re: Boost implementation of the Library TR?

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-04 06:39:32

On Fri, 2 May 2003 09:44:05 -0400, Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>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

Which I've always considered a silly thing. Note that I'm speaking, so
to say, against myself here, because dynamic_bitset is probably the
library that has been changed most in the last months (there have been
changes in the implementation, and there will be others; there have
been changes to semantics -about which I've asked opinions here, with
no success-  and there will probably be even backward compatible
changes in the interface). This fact, that a library can be radically
changed after acceptance, kinda defeats the review process. I
understand the issue of TR compatibility is somewhat peculiar for
boost though. Being boost strongly standard oriented, it can be a very
strong reason to change things, but people don't change libraries for
caprice anyway. Thus the point is that reasons can be "good" or "bad"
but that must be analyzed on a case by case basis; and, let me say, we
should not be too afraid to break code if that is done to fix design
errors: boost components are likely to be what we'll be in the
standard in the next years; if we discover an error, and leave it
there because of backward compatibility, what will we standardize?
Something known to be defective since beginning? I think (let me make
a more general point here) that one of the little prices boost users
should be willing to accept (in exchange for working on
almost-standard components) is that the code can be changed
(reasonably, of course), until it reaches the maturity level suitable
for standardization (in other words, boost is also experimenting; a
way to try, in practice, what we want as a standard in the future.
Otherwise we have a policy of the kind: if you get it right since the
beginning then it's fine, otherwise you have to keep it broken
forever) 

Genny.