From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-25 14:07:58
While it might seem nice to have symmetry here, I think the emphasis is on
MACHINE-readable formats would be shorter and probably not human-friendly.
So my vote is NO REQUIREMENT for input facilities.
But if they have no 'cost' then
I vote YES for including them.
In other words, I am sitting on the fence ;-)
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Torjo
| Sent: 24 September 2004 17:47
| To: Boost list
| Subject: [boost] FORMAL review of "Output Formatters" - votes needed
| Dear boosters,
| There's been quite a hot debate about "Output Formatters" library.
| Reece has provided some input facilies in this library as well.
| This has drawn people to either sides: some don't want these input
| facilities, while others do.
| To conclude, I would like to ask you to vote:
| - "Yes" - in favor of Input facilities
| - "No" - don't want Input facilities.
| My personal vote is "No".
| Please share your own.
| Review Manager
| John Torjo
| -- john_at_[hidden]
| Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
| -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all
| -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/
| -- v1.4 - save_dlg - true binding of your data to UI controls!
| + easily add validation rules (win32gui/examples/smart_dlg)
| Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk