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
> 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 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