From: David Greene (greened_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-07 17:17:10
Janek Kozicki wrote:
> It would be very sad if it got rejected because the reviewers didn't
> have enough time to grasp the whole library. And it is HUGE.
> If I follow correctly we currently have 5 votes, of which one is
> abstaining, 2 negative and 2 positive. This is not good news (for me)...
> I really would like to see pqs in boost - I can't wait to start using it
> in my application.
What's preventing you from using it now? If it's just because it's
not "officially" in Boost, then that's a poor criteria for using
The review process is to ensure that libraries in Boost have been
thoroughly vetted and are of sufficient quality to serve the Boost
community. It is not meant as a general test of whether one should
use the library.
In this case, I brought up some missing functionality that I
consider critical to make the library as general as possible.
Boost prides itself on defining not just libraries, but
_reuseable_components_. Our goal should be to strive for
this as much as possible.
I use Boost because I don't want to reinvent the wheel. As
pqs currently stands, it does not achieve that goal for me.
I would have to implement something that looks much like
pqs but doesn't have its rigid assumption of powers-of-10
There is no shame in a Boost rejection. Many libraries have
been rejected, changed and accepted in a later review.