Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-29 16:25:25

At 04:36 PM 10/27/2003, Rob Stewart wrote:
>From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
>> Rob Stewart wrote:

>> > 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.

Some libraries are essentially extensions of components of the Standard
Library, or have the announced objective of eventually being submitted for

These libraries get reviewed in that context, so the reviews may tend to a

That doesn't mean that all Boost reviews will be so tightly focused on
standardization. If libraries are further afield, the reviews may be less
concerned with eventual standardization.


>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
>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
>Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at