Re: [boost] [feature freeze] range issue

From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-17 13:18:06

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:30:06AM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> Jo?o 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.
> 

As far as I know, the most important/problematic change deals with character arrays.
This change is important, but it will have quite a large impact on the
string algorithm library.

Regards,
Pavol