[boost] Re: string_algo Formal Review

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 15:37:06

Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:36:05PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>
> [snip]
>  
>> 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.

You can define a shorthand which associates template parameter names
(e.g. InputIterator) with specific concept requirements (e.g. "must
be an input iterator).  I think the standard does this, in fact.

You can also make some blanket statements about exceptions, like the
standard does.

That leaves you with only preconditions and postconditions, and
exceptions to the blanket statements about exceptions <g> where
appropriate.

> Second possibility is to answer your questions here on the list. I have 
> tried to do it already (maybe not 100% sucessfuly).

I think something a little more formal and less fleeting is required.

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