Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Maintenace Guidelines wiki page
From: John Phillips (phillips_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 01:57:09

Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> In general, no, but in this specific instance, yes. At least, the
> Range concept definitions in the initial release immediately following
> the formal review are richer and more useful, IMHO, than the
> definitions available in the current release.

   I spent some time with the archives this evening, and I find that 
there are dozens of emails from 2005, 2006, and 2007 talking about 
problems with the concept definitions and documentation in the original 
version of the range library. I also found a couple of different threads 
where Thorsten requested advice on potential changes to the library, and 
where he announced breaking changes to the library as a result of those 
conversations.

   This does not include finding any statements about changing the 
behavior of is_singular(), but those changes may have been made when he 
was making other, announced breaking changes. (I would have to study the 
check in information to find this out, and I haven't this evening.)

   So, though you may have preferred the old concepts, others thought 
them fatally flawed (and I find their arguments persuasive).

   This is not to say that I think the changes that started this thread 
were made properly. I can find no discussion on the developer list or 
note in the documentation about the changes happening, and I think that 
is a minimal standard for breaking changes. However, they may have been 
part of a redesign that was precipitated by conversations on the 
developer list, and other parts of that work were announced and 
discussed on the list. This would imply that Thorsten was closer to an 
acceptable process than he is currently getting credit for.

                        John