From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-07 15:57:10
>>> I ended up getting into an unpleasant exchange with the library
>>> author, who repeatedly challenged me to suggest concrete changes to
>>> the design to fix the perceived problems. I had examined the library
>>> more thoroughly, my guess is that I would have been able to suggest
>>> improvements. I don't blame the library author in this case; it's
>>> only natural to ask for an alternate design when you are told that
>>> your design is flawed;
> Maybe, but you shouldn't feel guilty. The onus is on the proposer to
> come up with a good design.
The question is: How far does a library author need to go in providing
evidence that the design is "good" (which often means different things
to different people, but lets ignore that for the moment)? Does a
proposer need to "prove" that the library design is the best currently
imaginable? While this might be possible for some libraries I don't
think it is generally feasible. More specifically, if a raised point is
so vague that the library author is at a complete loss exactly how an
improvement could be implemented I think it is only fair to turn the
roles around and require the reviewer to at least outline how the
improvement is implementable within the given requirements.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk