Re: [boost] [review] pqs

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-07 20:46:38

David Greene wrote:
> Andy Little wrote:
> 
>> The use of dots and signs is again based on the SI.  See for example section 
>> 6.1.6 in the 'Guide for the use of the International System of Units'.
>> The +ve sign is redundant but I liked the symmetry and it felt better that 
>> leaving it out. and IMO underbars are overused in C++ already.
> 
> Here's an example of where a rigid specification (SI) is degrading the
> user experience.

This is a little broad a claim. It might be degrading your user experience.

>  Picking an output format just because the SI says
> it is the one to use is a mistake.

In my book ignoring an existing standard just because we think we can 
come up with a better idea within 2 hours is a mistake and at least a 
little arrogant for that matter.

>  If the Boost community decides it's
> the right format, then it's the right format.  But to preclude changes
> because it may contradict the formal SI standard seems shortsighted.

Precluding them is stubborn. But having anything but a very high 
threshold for deviating from existing standards is asking for trouble, 
to put it politely.

Nothing I've seen so far comes anywhere near that threshold. An example 
for something that makes it would be that the respective part of the 
standard is commonly known as broken.

I think that Andy made a very good choice in following existing standards.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Witt
witt_at_[hidden]