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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-09 20:43:54

Carlo Wood <carlo_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:13:39PM -0500, David Greene wrote:
>> That said, I very much want to encourage further work on this library.
>> It _is_ very important.  I'm disappointed that Andy does not seem
>> committed to it.  The volume of feedback indicates that there's a
>> lot of interest.
>
> It is very hard for a volunteer to put a life-time of work into a
> library when he doesn't even know whether or not it will be
> accepted.

I very much agree, and I appreciate the courage it takes to submit
one's hard work to a Boost review.

> I've followed the review of PQS with great interest, and was
> amazed by Andy's patience and politeness. Yet, the end result of
> the review is a list of things that are "wrong" with the "currently
> unusable library". 

Now, now.  The only message in the boost archive containing both "pqs"
and "unusable" is this one:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/142241/match=pqs+unusable
which makes no such accusation.  To say nothing of the fact that
nobody seems to have written "currently unusable library" before now.
I don't think anyone has specifically said there was anything "wrong"
with the library, either, though I might've missed that.  

If you're going to put things in quotes, especially as a critique of
others' behavior, they ought to be actual quotations.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com