From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 07:33:52
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
> When I my review I never thought it will cause any long discussion. It's all
> very clear in my little corner. I must admit that my understanding
> significantly changed since. But my main point remains the same. I do not
> have time to reply to all the related messages. So let me give it another
> try to convey my point clearly: I don't see any reason to discuss library
> interfaces and even more implementation without clearly stated problem
> domain. How could you tell whether one interface/implementation is better
> than another without understanding how it's planned to be used?
Gennadiy, you may not have noticed this but I said the same
yesterday. So you're not alone.
> Now, based on library docs, we could try to give it some educated guess.
> Unfortunately this lead me to decide that this library is not acceptable in
> none of the potential problem domains.
For the record, I have not made any educated guesses, nor have I
reached any conclusions. I just want to lend support to the idea that
this library needs a very clear statement of domain, and it is needed
BTW, thank you very much for taking the time to explain your points
clearly and patiently. It may take longer for you to write them, but
it's much easier for someone like me to read.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk