Re: [boost] [spirit] New Header Structure [was Re: Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:]

Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] New Header Structure [was Re: Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:]
From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-08 17:16:41

Joel de Guzman wrote:

> Unfounded: "Without a basis in reason or fact" seems a better
> fit, IMO. Your reasoning is flawed because it is not based on
> hard facts, just suspicions based on circumstances.

Robert says: "I had trouble", 
You say "You shouldn't". 
The whole thread is in a dead lock here, 
because both sides IMHO are right in some sense:

Yes, your solution is fine and withstands complaints,
because the educated can migrate.
Yes, Robert (and I) had some head scratch at first contact
with your solution. Take it or not.

This is what we find in the world literature (Winnie the Pooh):

<cite author="A.A.Milne">
When you [...] Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing 
which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it 
gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. 
</cite>

Robert looks at your solution and states:

>> And all I'm saying is that your nomenclature and practices
>> regarding #include, versioning, deprecation, etc. create a lot
>> of confusion 

Confusion is the keyword.

>> and extra work - at least for me. 

This is debatable. I give you some points here, Joel.

>> This thread  
>> seems to indicate I'm not alone in this.  Feel free to address
>> or ignore this complaint as you see fit.
> 
> So, tell me who else has this problem? 

The problem is: your perfect solution is perfect, but disliked.
Me, too, voting against it, due to confusion.

I already stated in the thread "Breaking existing libraries" 
that the complete redesign of the interface should 
have forced a new name for the library. 

I know there is a thin line between new library
and new version of a library, but spirit2 is NOT
a new version of spirit at all. 
It is a 250% redesign and concept rework based
on completely different libs like proto.

I drop into this discussion here because for
future changes of the boost library I'd like to see
some rules established that disallow such header magic
for well-established, mature parts of boost.

best regards,

Markus