From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-27 07:59:57
John Maddock wrote:
> Subject to the issues raised being addressed, I vote "yes" to
> acceptance of this library - it meets an obvious need, and the design
> appears to be satisfactorily. My one reservation is the size of the
> library, and the fact that there are often many different ways of
> accomplishing the same task - however only testing "in the wild" will
> determine whether that is an issue or not in practice.
Let's hope that this is what will happen, although I have some reservations.
In my experience, testing in the wild can almost never "minimalize" an
interface. It works well in the opposite direction, making a far too minimal
interface more complete - users are certain to report legitimate use cases
that aren't covered well, but they never bother to report "useless"
functions, because they assume these functions are only useless to them, not
to the community at large.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk