Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-13 21:49:10
On 1/13/2011 8:42 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:26:32 +0100,
> vicente.botet wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dave Abrahams"<dave_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
I think the idea is that if library X depends on library Y, and library
X gets reviewed before library Y, and library X gets accepted then:
1) Library X has to wait for library Y to be reviewed and Library Y has
to then get accepted into Boost.
2) Library X has to duplicate the functionality of whatever it uses in
This does create some problems especially if library X heavily depends
on Library Y and Library Y is not accepted into Boost.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk