Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [heap] Summary
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-20 12:34:29
Den 18-06-2011 16:49, Andrew Sutton skrev:
> The formal review of Tim Blechmann's Heap library has concluded.
> Only four votes were cast, although more people commented on issues
> either on the mailing list or though the Code Collaborator tool.
> However, from the comments received, the review identified no
> fundamental problems in the design or implementation of the library
> that would entail rejection. A such,
> the Boost.Heap library is ACCEPTED into Boost
> Votes for the library were cast by:
> Phil Endecott
> Daniel Russel
> Votes against:
> Thomas Klimpel (provisionally)
> Andrew Sutton
This is of course not a very large foundation on which to make such a
decision. Nor is the vote particular clear.
I didn't cast a vote, but I will be /extremely/ unhappy with having
a library where this is not addressed:
> - Thorsten Ottosen suggest making b_heap and d_ary_heap container
> adaptors along the lines of std::stack, std::queue, and
> std::priority_queue, allowing parameterization over (e.g., stack-based
> container). Subsequent discussion indicates that there are some
> impracticalities in doing so, namely that it could invalidate other
> policies (e.g., stability).
I fail to to see the problem; I don't recall any problem with stability
or other problem. If there is one, then make the guarantees conditional
on the properties of the supplied container.
If drop-in support for other types of containers is not added,
the library is a lot less useful for me (and many others). There is
plenty of motivation for having this feature, and it is dead-easy to
implement as well.
So /please/ add this to the list of required fixes that must be done
before inclusion is possible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk