From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 13:36:05
Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> The issue isn't implementation, it is the lack of requirements on
>> types specified as template parameters, and the lack of
>> preconditions, exceptions thrown, postconditions, and other firm
>> specifications for functions.
>> Without that fundamental documentation, it doesn't seem possible to
>> evaluate the proposal.
> I understand your requirements and I agree that they are
> underspecified in the documentation, but I see your opition very
> unfair and unjust.
> There are libraries in the Boost, which lack these specifications
> completely (like Regex, sorry John:) ) and yet, they are part of boost
> and nobody find this issue a problem.
> As an author of the library, I find many issues as granted, because I
> don't have a user view. A part of the review process should be
> finding of these deficiencies and updated them. Adding few chapters,
> to docs is an easy task compared to whole library development. So
> please let me explain any issues, you have questions about, but don't
> reject the library straight away, just bacause of some
I agree with both of you. Those documentation issues need to be
addressed. That said, in the small amount of time I've had to look
at the documentation of this library, I've been impressed with the
overall thoroughness and attention given to explanation. On the
other hand, to evaluate the library and make it possible to vote to
accept, I agree that the missing details need to be filled in.
-- 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