[boost] Re: date_time naming

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-03 14:13:17

"Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some
> names are less than ideal.  I found kday less than intuitive.
> Documentation of the labyrinthine (with good reason) structure is
> also weak (or even wrong?)
>
> It seems to me that these observations at this stage highlight a
> weakness of the current review process.  Until code gets Boost
> acceptance status, too few are prepared to really use it in anger on
> real projects, and only then do lots of 'issues' start to surface.
> But by then, changes cause grief to existing users, so there is a
> reluctance to 'improve' things like naming.
>
> Do we need a 'still may be subject to significant change' status to
> distinguish from a 'pretty much tried and tested' status?

Maybe review managers should do an assessment of how much scrutiny
has been applied, and solicit a closer inspection.  I know I'd have
found most of these had I participated in the date_time review.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com