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.
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk