From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-27 16:36:06
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> > 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 severely 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
Of course. I didn't suggest otherwise.
> order to even be able to move forward. Boost will reach that stage, if it
> hasn't already.
I disagree. Select libraries within boost have reached or will
reach that stage.
> 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
Right. Such an issues list could well be instituted here; indeed
they are in some for or other by the library maintainers based
upon list participation.
> > 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?
Every review of late seems harsher than the one before wrt
documentation, for example. More and more discussion centers
around how the proposed idea will look when moved to namespace
std. (That's always been in the back of many folks' minds around
Boost, but it is quite upfront now.)
Many Boost libraries are well on their way to being incorporated
as is or with relatively minor changes into the standard. I
think this has given many a sudden reality check that is being
passed along to others, even if inadvertantly.
The review process has gotten to where the hapless first-time
library submitter is pummeled with demands for stellar
documentation and uncompromising implementation, even before the
submitter knows whether the library will be accepted. Perhaps my
own perception is colored, but these things seem harsher of late.
Reviews of later versions should, rightly, be demanding, but that
seems to apply to all reviews anymore.
> > 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"
> > group.
> > (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"?
Fine. I overstated my case. s/highest/high/
There are many libraries that are *high* quality, usable, largely
portable, and reasonably well documented that are not LWG ready.
Should that preclude them from submission to Boost? Besides,
doesn't "LWG ready" imply formal language that is not desirable
for "normal" documentation?
-- 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