Subject: Re: [boost] Improving review process
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-14 06:56:19
At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:49:10 -0500,
Edward Diener wrote:
> On 1/13/2011 8:42 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> > At Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:26:32 +0100,
> > vicente.botet wrote:
> >> 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
> > boost::foo::bar::x.
> I think the idea is that...
I understand your point, Edward. I just think there are tractable (if
slightly ugly) solutions available.
> if library X depends on library Y, and
> library X gets reviewed before library Y, and library X gets accepted
> 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
> Library Y.
I would rather say, "import" than "duplicate."
> This does create some problems especially if library X heavily depends
> on Library Y and Library Y is not accepted into Boost.
Just do it the way Spirit/Fusion did it. When X is reviewed, make the
parts of Y you need look like a sub-part of X. When Y comes up for
review on its own, you adjust, implementing some
backward-compatibility glue as needed.
-- 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