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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk