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: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 11:50:07

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Juni 2009 17:18
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] sorting library proposal (Was: Review Wizard Status Report for June 2009)o

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

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> >> 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.

Good point.

I know that there are some geometry libraries currently under development that plan to be proposed for review sooner or later. At least one of them tries to address the robustness problems that occur in this context with a "novel" modification of an established technique. Should we tell the author that he has to publish these modifications first in a reputable journal before proposing his library for review? I don't think so. However, he will certainly have to convince the reviewers during the review that his implementation is reliable, which includes that the implemented algorithms are reliable.

I also know that this case is different from the one currently discussed, in that this "novel" modification is an implementation detail of the geometry library, while the "novel" algorithmic improvements are an important motivation for proposing the "sorting" library for review.

Regards,
Thomas