From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-09 16:05:59
I'm looking to see if there are any good ideas for how to review the
two futures libraries that are both currently in the queue. Since they
are two different approaches to the same problem domain, isolated
sequential reviews does not seem to be a good idea.
So far, the best thought I've had on the subject is to run a single
review that includes both libraries, where it is explicitly part of the
review to discuss which parts of which realizations are the best choice.
This process will need to keep the proposals before the committee in
mind, but it is a way to compare and contrast the strengths of the two
in close proximity. If we do this, there are a couple of questions that
should be added to the usual review process.
* Which interface choices are best suited to the problem domain?
* Should Boost offer competing implementations of this feature?
* Should the libraries be melded together?
* Should a subset of the approved library be restricted to only the
facilities and interface in the standardization committee proposal?
There are my initial thoughts. I would like to hear from others on
this, as well. I especially would like to hear from the authors and from
anyone who has been involved in the evolving standards proposal. Thanks
for your ideas.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk