From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-31 07:42:28
Glen Knowles <gknowles_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> From: David B. Held
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > What is the point of these IDs? It seems like it adds busywork for
>> > reviewers and no especially useful information. Now we're talking
>> > about making them more complicated...
>> Maybe they have to do with a nagging feeling that Boost
>> Libraries don't all have a canonical name, and even when it
>> seems like they do, people tend to call them whatever they
>> feel like.
?? Can't imagine what you're referring to. I've never had a problem
identifying review emails from their title.
>> Perhaps we should either go with a numerical
>> index (which the DBA in me prefers), or insist that all
>> libraries have a canonical name and that everyone use that
>> name to refer to it (perhaps to make it easier to filter
>> messages containing the name).
> There is also the case of a library having multiple reviews, the
> serialization library comes to mind.
Okay, but when has that ever led to confusion?
-- 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