Subject: Re: [boost] [locale] Formal review of Boost.Locale library -- final days
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-22 06:37:51
On Apr 22, 2011, at 4:07 AM, Henrik Sundberg <storangen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Vicente BOTET <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I don't like the OO design. I think that a more generic approach could be applied to this domain, and add a dynamic approach in top of the static one.
>>> The library should be redesigned with a generic approach and the interfaces be more user friendly and safe. I know the author is against the generic approach so I don't expect he will change later on if the library is accepted.
>> Sorry, no review this time, just an opinion from following discussion and reading the rationale.
>> Looks like a useful library but I think it could take another revision. Again, apologies for no real review. & thanks to Artyom and Chad.
> Does this mean that you prefer to have no locale library instead of
> this one in Boost?
No, I mean I would like to see Artyom try to address some of the design concerns and try again.
But I'm not voting, only having an intellectual interest and zero experience with i18n. This is called "standing aside".
> Artyom likes his design better (as I understand it). He's probably not
> the one to write the library you want.
Almost everyone likes their own design better, but the best authors are willing to consider new ideas. Artyom seems to have a good attitude about the smaller issues and I hope he'll think about the big picture too, whether or not the library's accepted.
> Boost accepts different libraries solving the same problem. Isn't this
> library good enough to be such alternative?
> Especially since there is
> no other alternative at all for the moment (or in the foreseeable
I sympathize with what you're saying, but I think it's worthwhile to put libraries through multiple reviews if there's a chance of getting a much better designed library in the process. Cf. Xint, Process.
This seems very much in the C++ tradition to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk