From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-01 04:13:35
> "Rob Stewart" wrote
>> Andy Little wrote
>> I am pleased to formally announce that the Typeof library has been accepted
> Congratulations Arkadiy and Peder.
>> There were 3 reviews, all in favour of accepting the library.
> While I'm not questioning the value of accepting this library
> specifically, doesn't it seem less than ideal to accept a library
> that -- for whatever reasons -- garnered only three reviews?
I based my decision simply on the fact that the functionality is (though often
discussed on comp.std.c++) sorely lacking in the current language, which is
hopefully to change if the decltype proposal is passed. IMO the number of
reviews is often an exponential function of the complexity of the library ( The
'bike shed' syndrome). As well as representing functionality not currently
available in the core language, this library uses two of the most complicated
features of boost, mpl and the preprocessor, which I would guess dramatically
cuts down the number of boosters who found it easy to understand the
implementation, (or perahps even the purpose of the library) and therefore felt
able to submit a review.( OTOH Take a look inside the lambda library and see the
library specific workarounds curently being used to emulate this type of
functionality.) As Jonathan Turkanis stated many are busy working on the next
release, which also has an impact.
Finally of course, the review manager has absolute power and is unelected.
Perhaps this is a weakness in the current scheme. Personally though I think that
the current scheme is practical and works ok, and any modifications in that
direction would result in it becoming more difficult to recruit review managers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk