Re: [boost] [ongoing review of binary_int] reviewers for smallutility wanted

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-23 07:33:31

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams"
>
>> Is there some rationale that describes how useful these libraries are
>> somewhere?
>>
> Not in docs. But it has quite obvious value e.g. for those
> working on control systems, for example.

Yes, but that doesn't (necessarily) mean it is widely useful enough to
belong in Boost.  For those of us having limited imagination, it would
be a good idea to have that rationale in the docs.

>
>> Are we running simultaneous reviews for two separate librareis?
>>
> No. The review is about small utility which has two
> alternative implementations.

Clearly the interfaces are markedly different too.  It's not one small
utility; it's two.  So I guess the answer is "yes."  

It's a bit unusual for us, but I guess there's nothing wrong with ti.

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