From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 14:37:13
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:36:05PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
What is the best way to fill in those missing details?
Given that this review has a short time duration, I wouldn't be able to
add required specifications to each algorithms in the library.
What I can do is to write a small chaper in the docs, which explains used
concepts. Given the fact that most of algorithms in the library comes in
the same three variants, defininy the requirement for these three variants
should be sufficient for the overal picture.
Second possibility is to answer your questions here on the list. I have
tried to do it already (maybe not 100% sucessfuly).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk