From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-27 13:30:34
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> >> There is definitely a chicken-and-egg problem. Reviewers often want
> >> fairly finished docs, but developers don't want to put effort into
> >> finished docs unless a library is going to be accepted.
> > Paul's question wasn't just about documentation. Can a proposed
> > library, with some minimally sufficient documentation and
> > framework sketch, be provisionally accepted before an author
> > begins rigorously pursuing the idea?
> Depends on where we want Boost to go. Do we want just a repository of fairly
> useful libraries (for some broad definition of "useful")? Or do we want
> Boost to be a "sandbox library working group", where library authors go to
> get a feel of how the committee operates, to establish the infamous
> "existing practice" that is often needed for a standard library proposal,
> and so on?
> My personal opinion is that we should move away from the "anything goes as
> long as it's useful" model and move even closer to a "sandbox LWG" model;
> I'd go even further and suggest that we should have an "official" paper
> submission process and an "official" agenda. In a "sandbox LWG" reviewing a
> library without documentation is simply unacceptable, although reviewing a
> documentation without library is not!
One of the valuable services Boost offers is to codify
state-of-the-art approaches and facilities for C++. Imposing
the rigidity required to be a "sandbox LWG" will severly hamper
I agree that a "sandbox LWG" would be beneficial, and Boost seems
to be *stretching* in that direction, but I don't think the two
can coexist. The expectations are widely separated and neither
should be lost.
Given that Boost has only recently migrated toward the more
rigid, LWG-focused mindset, it would be easier to back off at
Boost and launch a new group that steps in as the "sandbox LWG"
Consider references to Boost in the literature that tout its
offerings of ready-made libraries for various purposes. That
view of Boost fits best with the "anything goes as long as it's
useful" model, and bolsters the idea of a new "sandbox LWG"
(Note that "anything goes" is extreme. The accepted libraries
would still be expected to meet the highest standards, they just
wouldn't have to be LWG ready to be accepted.)
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk