Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 20:42:03
At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:26:32 +0100,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:49 AM, vicente.botet
> > <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> Another case could be that the library depends on another library
> >> not yet scheduled.
> > That's actually no reason to hold up the review. Any dependencies can
> > be recoded as implementation details for final submission until
> > they're ready to be reviewed on their own.
> You are right if the dependency is an implementation detail, not if
> the dependency appears on the interface.
Meh. You can always alias the dependency into the library under
review for the purposes of the interface. In other words, instead of
using boost::bar::x in the interface of boost::foo::f, use
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk