From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-02 10:05:04
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk