Re: [boost] [msm] Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [msm] Review
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-03 19:55:34

On Dec 3, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Andreas Huber wrote:

> Hi David
> 
>> 1. Is there a Boost library removal process, so that one can at
>> least mark a library as deprecated? The duality, sort of, to the
>> acceptance process.
> 
> Remove libraries? Current users of the to be removed library would be delighted to learn that their code will no longer compile with the next version of Boost. Deprecated libraries? Seems like a good idea, if the new library offers a strict superset of the features of the old one. In reality this will almost never happen.

Well, that is the case with Spirit 1 and Spirit 2, right?

>> 2. *If* (i) MSM were part of Boost before Statechart and (ii)
>> compilers could handle massive transition tables (in the order
>> of a few hundred transitions), would Statechart have been
>> accepted?
> 
> Probably not, but why is this important?

How do you think it feels for new Boost users to encounter two libraries with virtually identical use and interface? I think that is a bad thing in itself, and makes Boost look less coherent. I.e., if these two libraries were up for review now, would we accept them both?

My team members and colleagues that are new to Boost, will ask me why 1.43 has two virtually identical - feature-wise - libraries handling state machines. I do not want to tell them "why do you care?"

Well, well, I seem to be the only one caring about this, and MSM sure is a fine library, so I say 'welcome metamagical states!'.

NOTE: no, this was not a formal review ;-)

/David