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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk