Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03

Subject: Re: [boost] New libraries implementing C++11 features in C++03
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-24 16:06:31

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Lorenzo Caminiti <lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr.
> <jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Dean Michael Berris <
> mikhailberis_at_[hidden]
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Lorenzo Caminiti <
> lorcaminiti_at_[hidden]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Dean Michael Berris
> >> > <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I (and maybe others as well who follow the same logic I follow) don't
> >> >> see a large enough gap between C++11 lambdas and
> >> >> Boost.Phoenix/Lambda/Bind function objects that merits being
> addressed
> >> >> by local functions. Until you can convince us that local functions
> are
> >> >> "absolutely necessary" and that C++ should have it because it makes
> >> >> certain programming paradigms/techniques possible, I'm afraid what
> you
> >> >> have is a solution that's looking for a problem.
> >> >
> >> > 1) I don't think I have to convince anyone. Following Boost process, I
> >> > have first asked for interest in the library about ~1year ago plus all
> >> > the reviewers have answered the question:
> >> >> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> >> > With that information I am confident that the review manager will be
> >> > able to assess the library usefulness taking into consideration the
> >> > opinion of /all/ the people that reviewed the library.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, you kinda have to convince people -- especially now that
> >> questions have been raised by members of the community, both in the
> >> review and on this thread. There have been "non-inclusion" votes
> >> already sent in. I'll throw my hat into that side of the ring too now
> >> if it's not too late and too much work to write a review.
> >>
> >
> > Noted.
> >
> > More than anything, I just want to let everyone know that I'm closely
> > following this thread (and related threads) to help me make a decision on
> > Local.  I was hoping this discussion would also clarify the position
> Boost
> > takes on similar libraries.  However, clearly, whatever decision I make
> is
> > going to be quite polarizing, and, honestly, I don't think it's a
> decision
> > *I* should make; the community appears to be having difficulty coming to
> > anything resembling a consensus :/
> >
> > Personally, going into this review, I thought Local was a shoe-in for
> > acceptance.  But I feel like those against inclusion have brought up some
> > very good points.
>
> A process question: How does Boost work? Does it count the votes of
> the reviewers or anyone expressing an opinion even if not submitting a
> review?
>

I'm going off of

http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html

which indicates (to me) that it doesn't have to come down to a comparison
of the number of "yes" votes versus the number of "no" votes.  Rather, the
following two quotes from the above link,

"The final "accept" or "reject" decision is made by the Review
Manager<http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Review_Manager>,
based on the review comments received from boost mailing list members."
"The Review Manager: [...] Decides if there is consensus to accept the
library, and if there are any conditions attached."

indicate a much more "holistic" process to coming to a conclusion.  And,
now that I'm rereading the above, there certainly is not "consensus" to
accept Local :(  (Of course, there is also not consensus to reject Local,
but it appears the review guidelines take an understandably conservative
approach that naturally raises the bar for acceptance.)

- Jeff