Re: [boost] [feature freeze] range issue

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-17 11:30:06

João Abecasis <jpabecasis_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> Thomas Witt wrote:
>>> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> Do you have anything to add to the discussion on committing
>>>> the new version of boost.range?
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply my internet connectivity over the last few days 
>>> was worse than expected.
>>>
>>> Given the fact that we don't want destabilizing changes in feature 
>>> freeze I would really like to move this to 1.35.
>> 
>> I dno't like it. For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a 
>> freah-check out. Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong
>> protocol for range conformance.
>
> I've been following discussions on Range issues and the issues Thorsten 
> was solving looked pretty serious. Boost.Range offers an important set 
> of Concepts that users are encouraged to implement and extend.
>
> IIUC, there were issues in the customization interface and both issues 
> and fixes were discussed at length on the mailing lists. It seems very 
> bad to have them wrong for another Boost release. 

If it's just about naming in the customization interface, I don't
think that's serious enough to hold up a release.  If it's something
deeper, then somebody had better explain it to us.

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