Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Lambda

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-02 08:57:28

On Sun, 02 May 2004 09:29:37 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
> > As for the protocol side of things: does anyone think we need to review a 
> > library that is (1) merely scaffolding for other libraries, (2) trivial, and 
> > (3) already blessed by the standards committee? Methinks not.
> 
> We probably don't need to.  Maybe we should anyway, just to give the
> fast track review process some exercise?  I don't really have a
> position on what the answer should be.

Given that we still have 7 reviews on the backlog it isn't really a good time
to test out the process.  And given #2, #3, and that it is a small extension
to an already existing library it seems it doesn't seem to qualify for review
anyway.

Jeff