Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-12 19:04:40

"Lubomir Bourdev" <lbourdev_at_[hidden]> writes:

> GIL's way of documenting concepts has been a hot topic for discussion,
> so let me share our thoughts on it.
> Our current documentation is in this form because we believe it is more
> intuitive and we hope some related version of it will make it into the
> standard.
> As part of ASL we have no requirement to use the old style. Given the
> size of the library, we feel it will be too much wasted work to change
> the design just for the boost review, in case the library does not make
> it into boost.
> That said, if there is a strong consensus that as a condition for
> acceptance GIL must switch to the old-style concept documentation, we
> will change it. We prefer the opposite - to update the GIL documentation
> to comply with the very latest draft of the proposal.

Let me just say again for the record that I don't have an absolutist
position about using old-style concept documentation. If the use of
new-style documentation is done carefully and rigorously, and explains
how the documentation should be read, it could be just fine (or

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at