Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-18 20:28:09

Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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
>>> practice"
>> Why are you saying that while insisting that there's no "standard
>> practice"?
> 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.

We can't argue that way. Give me your definition of "standard
practice" first. Seems I'm looking at Mars and you might be
looking at Jupiter.

To me, it's clear that there's standard practice. The boost community
has been here a long time and the conventions are pretty much
clear by just looking at the libraries before (i.e. I learned
from Dan Nuffer who did the initial boost-ification of Spirit
prior to its review). To me, the idea of "core" libraries has been
very clear right from the start.

So, I'm curious. Is there a precedent that prompted you to
place static_warning in the root boost directory and in
namespace boost?

>>> 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.

It's not perfect, for sure. Discussions like this, hopefully,
should get the issues straightened. Again, I'm curious, it
seems (you say) that you based your judgement from discerning
standard practice from existing libraries. So which is it that
you based placing static_warning in the root boost directory and
in namespace boost on? Please understand that I want to look at this
constructively and objectively.

> 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.

I disagree. IMO, no-one is changing the rules in the middle of the
game. It's just that you did something that slipped the radar
screen. Our task now is to make sure that this does not happen.
And, I agree with you that we should have some kind of policy

>>> 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
>>> change.
>> 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.



Joel de Guzman

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