Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-04 04:13:48
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Jan 02 2009, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. Major changes in library functionality should be reviewed.
> Not commenting on #1. As for #2,
> a. That has never been Boost's official policy. We can have a debate
> about it, but that debate has yet to occur and there's certainly no
That's true. I was just expressing my point of view. To me, a major
addition to an accepted library or a major overhaul of its interface is
equivalent to a new library submission, and therefore it should undergo
a review. Maybe, a lightweight one.
> b. I have never seen an example where such a change was conducted with
> good library evolution practices and it caused major problems.
> c. I've seen several examples where undertaking even minor changes
> without good library evolution practices causes major pain.
I remember a lengthy discussion about a change in Boost.Range recently.
Technically, it may not have been a major change in code, and I'm not
judging now whether that change improved the library or not. But the
fact is that it caused problems for the end users.
I'm not sure whether it applies to (b) or (c), because I didn't see any
guidelines of good library evolution practice on the web site.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk