Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results

Subject: Re: [boost] [constrained_value] Constrained Value review results
From: Robert Kawulak (robert.kawulak_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-13 21:20:47

> From: Gordon Woodhull
> All of the items in section 3 must be addressed at least in documentation.  In some cases, they can
> only be addressed that way ("Substitutability with the underlying type", "Constraints not copied when
> operators used").
> 
> To my memory, no one asked for a second review, so it is my judgment that once Robert has addressed
> section 3 the library can be released.  Robert, please post any objections.

You want to say literally all? I mean, some of the points were rather suggestions or minor requests (at least I felt so) or had no
clear conclusion, e.g. "seralization" or "rename bounded_int", to name a few. For some of them I don't see how I could address them
in documentation or why should they be crucial for final acceptance (don't get me wrong - I'm open for suggestions, but for instance
if I were to add all the examples suggested by people to the docs, it would become too bloated and out of topic. A software
maintainer can't do everything to please anybody but has to choose which requests to implement and which not to). To conclude - I
don't feel section 3 contains only major issues, so should all of them be crucial for acceptance?

Best regards,
Robert