RE: [boost] Divergent Paths in Boost?

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-28 06:02:47

Since I started this thread with a minor observation, perhaps this permits me to
indulge myself and add a few pennyworths ;-)

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
| Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:36 PM
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Divergent Paths in Boost?

| Every review of late seems harsher than the one before wrt
| documentation, for example.

My impression too. And some emphasis on formal over useful, for which examples
are often most helpful.

| 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.

| There are many libraries that are *high* quality, usable, largely
| portable, and reasonably well documented that are not LWG ready.

'LWG ready' should, IMO, not only include the documentation, formal and perhaps
even more important, informal and _USABLE_, but also a period of real-life use
and a period of maintenance, improvement and modification in the light of
experience.

Survival in the Boost Library makes it much more likely that code has got over
the useability hurdle.  Do we need to try to assess which items of the Library
are being used - or not?

Fitness-for-purpose is the real quality test. That includes things like 'do
people like it' - because if they don't, they won't use it.  For this reason,
items of the highest standard may NOT be suitable the Library.

High quality items may also be unsuitable because of interactions with other
items.
For example, there have been several 'high quality' separate contributions on
units and dimensions and constants,  but they don't mesh together well and so
will not ultimately be suitable for std::.  But should we continue to reject all
rather than accepting some now and superseding later when a better solution
emerges?

My instinct is to accept more, use more, modify and improve more
 - but finally deprecate more.

I believe that Boost's strength is that it can change its mind.

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]