From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 07:32:32
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Besides, doesn't "LWG ready" imply formal language that is not
>>> desirable for "normal" documentation?
>> In my opinion, a reasonably tight definition doesn't necessarily
>> imply formal language, although formal language makes the task
>> considerably easier for non-native speakers, at least. In other
>> words, informal descriptions are acceptable as long as the
>> informality isn't used to avoid doing the work.
> The hard part about formal documentation is that (painting with a
> broad brush here), people don't read it.
Maybe... or maybe not. The ability to read formal specifications is a
valuable skill, and I'll be glad if we can help some of our users acquire
But our discussion was, I think, about the level of documentation that is a
necessary prerequisite for a formal review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk