From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-22 03:32:38
David Abrahams wrote:
> John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>We got a lot of feedback relating the "Output Formatters" library .
>>"Yes" votes : 4
>>"No" votes: 2
>>"Abstain" votes: 2
>>- The docs and naming of the classes/functions could certainly be improved.
>>- Seems a lot of people want this for pretty output, testing, debugging.
>>- People don't need this library to provide ANY input facilities
>>- quite a few people wanted a redesign.
>>Thus, I wil consider this library "Pending Acceptation". In other
>>words, it's considered Accepted by default, but since it will be
>>redesigned, a new short review will take place.
> I have no opinion whatsoever about the library's merits (I didn't
> look), but what you're describing here surprises me. The group's
> reception to the library seems from the vote to have been lukewarm at
> best and the library is going to be redesigned. Of course review
> managers have the perogative to render any verdict they like, and I
> don't know what "Accepted by default" is supposed to mean exactly, but
> it doesn't seem like an appropriate result given what was written
I take back "Accepted by default", since is a bit confusing, sorry for
Here's what I mean:
it's clear that people want such a library, and a lot of positive
feedback was received. I know the library cannot be accepted at this time.
Reece will redesign it, given the feedback and a new formal review will
take place in about 3 months.
-- John Torjo, Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -- v1.5 - tooltips at your fingertips (work for menus too!) + bitmap buttons (work for MessageBox too!) + tab dialogs, hyper links, lite html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk