Re: [boost] [contract] Boost spoiled function declarations

Subject: Re: [boost] [contract] Boost spoiled function declarations
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-18 13:44:24

On 18 May 2010 14:04, Andrzej Krzemienski <akrzemi1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I think you are succesfully making the point that Boost.Contract
> syntax is no worse than that of Boost.Parameter; and since the latter
> made it into Boost, the syntax of Boost.Contract should be considered
> acceptable too.

Not at all, that's up to the reviewers to decide. We don't have any
requirement to respect a precedent set by another review. There could
be reasons why it's good for one library, but not another. It might
also be the case that experience with Boost.Parameter suggests that
it's a bad idea or just that the Boost.Parameter reviewers did a bad
job.

Daniel