From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-19 13:20:04
on Mon Nov 19 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
> So its not the placement itself that's wrong? The error is
> is only that it reviewed as part of something else rather than
> independently? So the correctness of the placement of
> such a module is defined in terms of the outcome of a
> formal review? Does that seem like a practical system
> to you?
Robert, the system has worked very well until recently.
> Suppose static_warning.hpp were reviewed and for some reason it was
> rejected and it were moved into the serialization library. Then we
> would have the situation where two very similar libraries would be
> in two entirely different places. Would this be logical from the
> standpoint of someone examining boost and trying to understand where
> stuff is?
It may in fact be suboptimally logical from that point of view. In my
opinion there are advantages that outweigh those disadvantages, but
that's not really important right now. We can debate the system as it
has existed all you like, but until there is consensus that it needs
to change, we ask that you try to follow the previous practices as
they have been laid out for you.
The Boost policy gives library authors a huge amount of freedom to
organize and evolve their libraries as they see fit. Once his library
has passed review, a library author can add huge new functionality at
any time, or decide to break backward compatibility when necessary, or
restructure the library's headers without a review. We only ask that
libraries stay within the boundaries of a boost/ subdirectory and
boost:: namespace named after the library, with the exception of
consolidated forwarding headers and small core libraries.
-- 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