Boost logo

Boost :

From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-30 19:50:10

On Aug 27, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> Since my SoC package constitutes a significant addition to the
> Boost.Graph library, Jeremy and I felt that it would benefit from the
> formal review process - especially the newer code that is concerned
> with the library interface. However, we're unsure if the review needs
> the same formality as a completely new library since this is, as
> mentioned, a (albeit rather large) change to an existing library.

I agree with Beman... I don't think we need a full formal review, but
something like it would be useful.

> An alternate idea might be to take these changes and any new
> Boost.Graph algorithms in the vault as a single introduction. This
> could include:
> - the planar graph suite
> - cycle ratio code
> - floyd-warshall (new params)

Planar graphs and the cycle ratio code are already in Subversion (?)

> A third option - and actually not a terrible idea - would be to
> branch the Boost.Graph trunk, perform the integration and then do
> some serious housekeeping like cleaning up tests, examples,
> documentations, making sure the interface is clean and consistent,
> and - god forbid - putting Boost.Graph into boost::graph.

This is the kind of thing that we really, really, really wanted to do
as part of the "Boost.Graph version 2". We'd also like to jettison
the current BGL named parameters mechanism to use the parameter
library, and also work to update the documentation from crusty old
HTML to Quickbook (which I think the IBD project has started doing?).
We have a few interface improvements and a bunch of bug fixes in the
Parallel BGL that could also make their way into this branch...

The big question, of course, is whether we can dedicate enough time
to make this happen. I can spare a few cycles until mid-October,
after which I hope my schedule will free up a bit to work on the BGL.

        - Doug

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