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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk