Subject: Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 11:01:26
Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Edouard A. <edouard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> I'm questioning the degree of assurance required for a new algorithm
> >> to be unleashed on the unsuspecting masses.
> > Exactly the point I was trying to make.
> So we agree violently then.
> > To be more precise the novelty of an algorithm shouldn't be held against
> > it.
> If you define "reasonable assurance" to exclude any algorithm that has
> not been published in a reputable journal, with at least 2 citations,
> is it still novel?
> Just kidding, WRT the novelty bit.
These questions all seem valid, but wouldn't it be enough to raise them during the review? As the discussion suggest, "novelty" is not clear-cut enough to be a good exclusion criteria. So I think "the novelty of an algorithm shouldn't be held against it" in the sense that it should not strictly prevent a review. However, it may indeed be a strong reason to reject the library during review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk