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: Steven Ross (spreadsort_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-03 13:04:05

Agreed; so let's shelve the review until that's done.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J <
lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Steven Ross wrote:
> > It sounds like I have significantly more work to do before this is
> > ready for review; it'll probably take me at least a month to get all
> > the requested changes in (including doc updates, especially a
> > thorough explanation and proof of worst-case performance).
>
> This work will be to your benefit though.  Without the assurance of
> worst-case performance in the documentation I would expect people to feel
> disinclined to use the library.  It is exactly that information that should
> convince people that they want to use the library.  Along with the
> theoretical assurance you should also provide benchmark comparisions in the
> documentation because people who can't follow the math of the proof are
> exactly the people who will be convinced by benchmark results.  People who
> aren't convinced by benchmarks we can assume to be shrewd enough to follow
> the proof.  :)
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>