Re: [boost] Review Managers Needed

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-08 11:27:32

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of AlisdairM
>Sent: 08 February 2007 11:04
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] Review Managers Needed
>
>John Maddock wrote:
>
>> The library is indeed a bit of a large conglomerate that will be
>> tricky to review - unfortunately the three parts are quite
>> intertwined from an implementation POV :-(  

I don't really see three parts.  Any distinction between distributions and so-called special functions, or indeed the
'not-so-special' functions like log, exp sin is purely arbitrary:  they are all math functions IMO.  It is true that, in general,
distribution functions use 'special functions' which in turn use 'not-so-special' functions, but IMO it would be confusing to try to
divide them.

A review does indeed need input from various people with different areas of expertise, but I don't realy see how to avoid this.
Hopefully they will just limit their comments to what they know about ;-)

There are also some serious practical problems about a retrospective division - not least the documentation, where we have worked
quite hard to provide cross linking, and now over 250 pages as a pdf!  Not to mention the code, cross function use, and common error
handling etc.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]