Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o

Subject: Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 11:17:50

Thomas Klimpel wrote:

> 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? 

I think that the it's better to raise issues earlier than later, because everybody involved 
can have a change to think and/or fix something.

- Volodya