[boost] Re: Changes with new release

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-21 05:54:46

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:39:05 -0400, "Edward Diener"
<eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>>> If I were a
>>> library implementor, whether Boost or otherwise, I would want to
>>> explain my ideas to the outside world as a way of promoting good
>>> technology.
>>
>> Ahehm... :-)
>
>An extra 'h' maybe <g>. Or is it just extra phlegm that got stuck in your
>throat when you typed it <g><g>.

I'm not sure what you are hinting at, anyway I just felt a little
ridiculous at thinking I was documenting/promoting "good technology".

>Actually I am quite serious with my preceding paragraph. I have never quite
>understand why so many good, and often brilliant programmers, take it so
>hard when others suggest that they document what they do in easily
>understandable sentences. There must be something wrong in the educational
>systems of the countries from which most programmers come when they can not,
>or do not, want to write clearly.

Wow, what an energetic paragraph :-) Honestly, after reading this I
went reading the whole thread (which I didn't before) looking for some
negative answer that could justify your impression, but didn't find
any. I see that Peter, for instance, agrees with the idea. Also,
lexical_cast has a concise and clear summary of the changes.

Of course it's true that many libraries don't have it, and I agree
that it is something users may have a need for, if nothing else to
decide whether upgrading or not. Basically this requires a little
preventive "organization" on the authors' part, because when it's time
to write the change section you are likely to not remember all the
significant changes you have done; and, of course, you don't write the
section _while_ doing the changes, because should they reveal
inadequate you have wasted time both with the code and with the
documentation (this "I don't remember" issue is not a joke... due to
lack of time my changes to dynamic_bitset spans about one year;
fortunately I've noted the rationale for almost everything I've done
because I did know that then Jeremy would have asked me about it, but
people who are the only authors of their library could not do the
same). Also, filtering the "internal" changes from changes that could
interest the user is quite a work too (it also depends on the level of
the user, of course. And you have to make a choice, based on your
personal idea of the inexistent "average" user - in the end you will
probably collect many of these little improvements under a generic
"several bug fixes" entry).

Summarizing, I agree with you that the work should be done but don't
underestimate it: if you take it seriously it requires time.

Genny.