Re: [boost] [Review][PQS] Concept names?

From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-08 12:50:45

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> The sins of the past do not justify making the same mistake again.
> IMO we have recently allowed too many libraries into Boost with
> inadequate documentation and especially with a muddled expression of
> generic programming, which is too poorly understood in the C++
> community at large.  For years, Boost set the standard for generic
> programming outside the STL, and that standard has recently become
> diluted.
> 

I can't speak to the quality of boost documentation, but I'd like to 
support the principle that good documentation is crucial. In fact, I'd 
say that the documentation *is* the library, and the code is merely one 
possible implementation of the library.

I do not know whether I will be able to provide a full review of PQS, 
but I will say that I find it difficult to vote yes with the 
documentation in its current state. I would like to see, at the very 
least, the documentation revised according to all the suggestions that 
have been made already and the library resubmitted.