From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-08 14:19:24
"David Abrahams" wrote
> "Paul A Bristow" writes:
>> What design changes would persuade you to vote for this attempt?
> I haven't looked at enough of it to know if there are other issues,
> but in order to resolve my problems with the issues I've raised:
> Clarity and conformance to Boost/C++ standards and conventions.
To be honest David, I am finding this quite difficult to handle. On the one hand
I think the PQS library is good, there seems to be interest and a need. On the
other hand, at least unofficially, Boost is your party and my impression is that
for whatever reason you wouldnt be too happy about this library becoming part of
boost. Coincidentally nor would I. The situation with PQS is that to do it
justice would take more time than I am prepared to invest. I would also need to
learn a lot about the internals of boost which would tie me in deeper than I
wish. I have spent a lot of time, particularly on the documentation, over the
past few months, but unfortunately writing documentation doesnt come easy to me
and I think I would find it quite difficult to complete to the required
standard, at least without a huge investment of time. ( At the end of the day I
am basically an average part-timecoder that somehow got involved way above my
I think the best solution in light of your comments is to withdraw PQS from
consideration and hope that someone else more in touch with the boost way comes
forward with a Units library.
Funnily enough I think both you and I would feel much happier that way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk