Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Johannes Brunen (JBrunen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 04:49:32
only my two cents.
"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> I'm sure that the library interest a lot of boosters. As you have heard,
> some of them found the context and goal of the review not enough clear.
> What about starting the review again setting up cleary the context of the
> review? Could you and the authors discuss if this can be organized?
Yes, definitely. We should only review one library at a time.
As the future library interface is already standardized, we should require
that the library does conform to this interface. After such a library is
successfully reviewed in a next step additions could be considered.
Is my impression correct that one of the authors is not on this list
anymore? If so, does it make sense to review this particular library?
On the other side, I would like to see that the authors merge their efforts
Generally, if we review libraries that are already standardized, I would
prefere that we do not review the interface but the documentation and
implementation of the contribution. What I try to say, is that IMHO a 'new'
library does need quite a different discussion and review than an already
existing library interface. In the last case some agreement about the
interface has already found and it is the question whether boost will
support such an interface or not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk