Boost logo

Boost :

From: Arkadiy Vertleyb (vertleyb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-07 18:02:45


"Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote
>
> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
> > "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote
> >
> >>It doesn't make sense to have download counters at all, really, if they
> >>randomly drop to zero every now and then.
> >
> > Frustrating though it is (I had to drop typeof download counter in the
past
> > from 99 to zero, because I had to re-upload the file initialy uploaded
by
> > Peder), I think it's a very useful tool, even though imperfect,
providing a
> > good indication of amount of interest combined with author(s) activity.
> > FWIW, if not download counter, there would be no BOOST_TYPEOF now.
>
> You misunderstand. My comment was not out of frustration. It's a
> matter-of-fact observation that if the download counters randomly and
> periodically drop to zero, then the numbers have NO meaning. They didn't
> go to zero because someone set them to zero, or because someone deleted
> and/or re-uploaded a file. They just mysteriously went to zero. Knowing
> this can happen, what can you infer about a file by looking at its
> download counter?

I did understand. What I was trying to say is that the error needs to be
corrected at some point, but meanwhile, even as is, the counter provides
useful information _for library authors_. I used it to determine interest
in typeof, which was otherwise undetectable. I can also see some interest
in RTL, and this also is pretty much the only indicator of this interest.
Even if tomorrow the download counter for RTL drops, I can still monitor the
reaction to any particular change, and this is quite useful, IMO.

Regards,
Arkadiy


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