[boost] Re: FORMAL review of "Output Formatters" - results

From: Hubert Holin (Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-22 09:31:27

Somewhere in the E.U., le 22/10/2004

   Bonjour

In article <41779260.6020709_at_[hidden]>,
 John Torjo <john.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> We got a lot of feedback relating the "Output Formatters" library [1].
> 
> "Yes" votes : 4
> "No" votes:   2
> "Abstain" votes: 2
> 
> Conclusions:
> - 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.

      I had intended to provide feedback on that library, but once again 
and unfortunately did not have time to do so.

      I just wanted to point out that the reason I was interested in it 
is that I had been told (when it was in the sandbox, quite some time 
before the review) it had the potential to help me simplify tremendously 
my quaternion and, especially, octonion libraries, by providing a better 
handling of input operators. So I would say (better late than never, 
though perhaps it is now *too* late) that there actually *is* an 
interest in input facilities.

> 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.
> 
> Reece will redesign the library, and a new formal review will take place 
> within 3 months from now.
> This review will take less time - I assume 7 days.
> 
> I will talk to Tom and Reece and schedule a next review date.
> 
> Best,
> John
> 
> 
> [1]
> Just in case you still want a peek at the old code:
> http://www.torjo.com/code/outfmt.zip (153Kb)

   Merci

         Hubert Holin