Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Phoenix review starts today, September 21st
From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-29 11:50:33
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Paul A Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
>>Sent: 29 September 2008 12:59
>>Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Phoenix review starts today,
>>> Again, let me reiterate, that despite all these changes, the design
>>> and implementation or V2 is still sound, and IMO, pretty much up
>>> to standards with Boost quality. It is still the solid basis for
>>> V3 with up to 95% of the interface intact and essentially unchanged
>>> design and structure.
>>In case *I* wasn't sufficiently clear about it, let me try to be
>>painfully explicit: we may want to discuss whether it's good for Boost
>>or its users if we release a new top-level library and then break its
>>interface in the next release, three months later. I'm all for
>>accepting some version of Phoenix, but I want to make sure that users'
>>needs for -- and the public perception of -- Boost's stability are
> I don't see that providing V3 *as well as V2* is breaking anything.
> Surely it is quite clear that V2 and V3 are different beasts, and if you want to jump from one to the other, you risk some trouble.
> This is price of improvement : I think Joel's proposed way of managing it is fine.
As I understand Joel's proposal he intends to never release V2 as a
top-level library but instead release V3 as an upgrade to
Boost.Lambda. That's certainly a good way to go, and I support it. But
if that's the case, let's review V3 when it's ready for review rather
than giving our stamp of approval to V2. Again, there are several
reasons V2 should remain in Boost.Spirit and not become a top-level
library: yet another incompatible bind, yet more incompatible
placeholders, etc. But there is every reason that V3 should eventually
become the top-level replacement of Boost.Lambda: extendability via
Proto, compatibility (at last) between lambda, bind,
std::placeholders, etc. So though I vote no on accepting V2 as a
top-level library, I support the plan and look forward to the actual