From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 12:31:07
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Daniel Frey wrote:
> I'm concerned about this issue, too. It seems that bool_testable isn't
> the small and side-effect-free enhancement we hoped. During it's
> development, I think the above problem wasn't raised.
As far as I know the issue was first raised in September:
> > But alas, we don't review changes to libraries after they're accepted.
> bool_testable is a new part of the operators library which has not yet
> been in any official version. The fast-track-review-process wasn't in
> place when I added it (AFAIK), so should we do the fast-track-review
> now? I'm open to suggestions, even if it means to remove bool_testable
> (or postpone it until 1.32.0).
I think a fast-track review would be appropriate, and it seems to meet all
of the criteria. Since there are no reviews running presently, perhaps it
could start Real Soon Now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk