[boost] Re: safe_bool alternative?

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-24 13:01:55

Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
> 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:
>   http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg52263.php

Indeed, and bool_testable was already in CVS at that time. Anyway, I 
should have addressed the issue earlier, sorry...

>>>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.

IMHO immediatly, if no one objects. Will you serve as the review manager 
or should I? If you like, I'll try to summarize the issues involved and 
will post an "official" fast-track-review-note to the list sometimes 
this evening...

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de