[boost] Re: operators.hpp bugs - apologies

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-28 20:13:39

Søren Lassen <s.lassen_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Sorry, I should probably have intialized the dialogue in a more toned-down  
> manner. On the other hand, I do not feel that the somewhat heated tone of  
> the discussion is all my fault. E.g. when Dave tells me that there are no  
> programming guidelines on the homepage, I did feel sort of snubbed - 

Get over it, it's true.

> he, of all persons, should know that the homepage has a link to a
> set of programming guidelines

Are you kidding?  Why "of all persons" should I remember every link on
the homepage, and know that's what you're talking about when you refer
to "guidelines on the home page?"

> which at least appears to be official Boost policy.

There is no guideline about constness of return types.  You
extrapolated from a reference to a book the idea that Boost takes
everything in that book to be an absolute rule.

Look, you show up with an almost completely misguided and hasty post
about "bugs" in a library, then you try to claim that Boost isn't
following its own programming guidelines, and then haul out
http://www.boost.org/more/lib_guide.htm#Rationale_rationale to deliver
what feels to me like a verbal bludgeoning with our own words.  At
that point I don't think you should expect anyone to bend over
backwards to be understanding.

So, no "the somewhat heated tone of the discussion" is not all your
fault.  If I were a perfectly enlightened being, I'm sure I wouldn't
be annoyed and I would have found some way to gently and patiently
correct all of your misperceptions.  Unfortunately for everyone
involved, I'm just human like everyone else.  And, while I appreciate
that you're willing to take some responsibility, "sorry, I shouldn't
have done that... but it's really Dave's fault too" doesn't amount to
much of an apology.

> Anyway, it may be a good idea to include e.g. a reference to Scott's  
> errata, and to the other books mentioned during the discussion on the  
> guidelines page. Likewise, when there is a discussion about e.g. the  
> const-ness of return values, it may be worth the effort to condense some  
> of the points into a simple text that gets a link on the Guidelines page.

Patches are welcome.

> -- 
> Søren
>
> P.S.: Here is my test program. My version of operators.hpp takes about 18  
> seconds with the Borland compiler and 23 with the Microsoft compiler,  
> whereas the official version takes about 15, resp. 20 seconds to run, all  
> very approximately (no need to count the milliseconds, the assembly output  
> also contains more "mov" instructions in my version):

What we really need, as I have requested several times already, is a
test program for the problem your other patch addresses.  I mean the
one that still might be valid, and that fixes the compilation failure
on some compilers.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com