From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-19 09:47:47
Please try to read the response below neutrally, if at all possible.
It is not intended as a retort or an admonishment. My intent is only
to bring this argument to a successful conclusion for everyone.
on Mon Nov 19 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> I'm not the one claiming there there exists an unambiguous
> definition of "standard practice" in this context so that's why
> I haven't claimed I followed it.
Nobody is claiming there has been an unambiguous definition.
> My claim is that its undefined and being stretched and distorted to
> fit with every post on this thread.
I gave you a summary of the Boost header placement customs in
and before that, more than a year earlier, in
I don't think anyone has made claims that contradict these summaries.
If they have, I'd like to try to clarify, so please point to the
specific "definition stretching" if you really think there has been.
Otherwise, I'm happy to drop this issue.
> I don't know what it is. I don't know where its defined.
Are the above summaries reasonably usable as definitions? Do they
leave you with any questions?
> That's why I had to try to extract from the example of the way boost
> was organized at the time. Given that is the way I had to do it,
> its no wonder at least some people think I got it wrong. Given the
> lack of definition - its inevitable that there is going to be
> disagreement on some decision which is supposedly based upon it.
Absolutely. So it happened, and now we are going to correct the
lack-of-documentation side of the problem. Are you willing to correct
your side of the problem? This is not a question of whether your past
actions are condemnable (they are not) but whether you now have the
information needed to understand the usual Boost practices.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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