From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-18 19:44:15
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>>> No, of course not. But was has boost/shared_ptr got to do with this?
>> wow - this is the iconic example of a violation of "standard
> Why are you saying that while insisting that there's no "standard
There is none - that's why I put it in quotes. "standard practice"
is a fluid definition in this context. The latest version cited now
seems to depend on something referred to as "core libraries"
whatever that means.
>> Another case of ill defined "standard practice" creating problems.
> Perhaps, but complain/object if you will in another thread.
> This is irrelevant to what I am objecting to.
What I'm objecting to is that an author works hard to follow
the stated standards for documentation and tries to discern
the "standard practice" from examples, and submits his library
for review, addresses all issues raised, and after years, has
to deal with strident objections which could have and should
have been raised during the review and could easily have
been addressed at that time. Its unprofessional and boost
has lots of examples of this.
So for me, its not a question so much of this or that directory
structure but the whole idea that its ok to change the rules in
the middle of the game. It wastes huge amounts of time.
>> boost/serialization/static_warning.hpp but at the time I thought
>> I might have to change it later to boost/static_warning.hpp sometime
>> in the near future and I wanted to avoid an interface breaking
> Wrong decision! It would be the other way around.
Hmmm - well, maybe we'll just submit static_warning.hpp for a fast track
review and be done with it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk