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

From: Leland Brown (lelandbrown_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 18:00:22

> Here is how I think that a review procedure could be improved:
> 1) It should be devided into at least five votes:
>    A. Is the concept ok? Do we want SUCH a library in boost?
>    B. Is the presented library a good starting point, or do
>       we think we should start from scratch?
>    C. Is the presented API of the library on the right track?
>    D. Is the internal implementation on the right track?
>    E. Is the documentation good enough for a boost library?

I like this - these are fairly orthogonal issues (except perhaps B, which C and 
D also address).  They may deserve separate evaluations in a review, to make it 
more clear what should be done with the library from here.

-- Leland