From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-27 15:07:39
Rob Stewart wrote:
> 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
> that benefit.
In the case of the real LWG, the "rigidity" is there for a reason. Once you
get past a certain stage, it becomes necessary to establish formalities in
order to even be able to move forward. Boost will reach that stage, if it
For example, there is a well known way to make the LWG review a
question/issue and make a decision - the LWG issues list. Boost doesn't have
such a formal procedure. One posts to the list and hopes for the best. There
is no entry barrier, but at the same time there is no guarantee that someone
will pay attention. And there is no paper trail apart from the list
> 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,
I'm not sure that this statement is true. What has made you think so?
> 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.)
If a library meets the highest standards, how can it not be "LWG ready"?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk