From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-08 17:40:02
"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "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
I don't know what that means. I am one of several moderators; it's
> and my impression is that for whatever reason you wouldnt be too
> happy about this library becoming part of boost.
No, not for "whatever reasons," for exactly the reasons I posted. It
seems like you're not responding to what I wrote, but something else.
I would even be open to being convinced to change my vote, if the
author exhibited sufficient interest in and responsiveness to my
concerns. I haven't looked at the code, but I really like the idea of
what this library does, and it probably has a pretty nice interface --
at the code level.
> Coincidentally nor would I. The situation with PQS is that to do it
> justice would take more time than I am prepared to invest.
Wow. Why did you submit it?
> 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
Nor to most people. Writing documentation takes a great deal of
attention, and anyone submitting a Boost library should be prepared to
spend at least as long documenting as coding.
> 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 level)
> 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
That's not funny at all, and it's not what I'd like at all. I'm not
sure what gave you that impression. I thought I made it clear that "I
hope we'll be able to accept a different version of this library" and
also that my negative vote was made with regret.
If you do decide to simply withdraw without making improvements, I'll
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk