Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: [boost] [review] Sort library review manager results
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-26 18:46:55

This is the results from the recent review of the Sort library of Steven

First I would like to thank all those who made comments during the
review, whether or not they officially gave a final Yes or No vote to
whether the Sort library should be accepted as a Boost library. This
list includes:

Niall Douglas, Julian Gonggrijp, Phil Endecott, Vladimir Prus, Mathias
Gaunard, Jeremy Murphy, Peter Dimov, Robert Ramey, Adam Walling, Anthony
Polukhin, Phil Endecott, Paul Bristow, Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg
Dupuis Etienne, and Frank Gennari

If I have missed anyone I do apologize.

Secondly I would like to thank Steven Ross for patiently answering all
of the review comments to the best of his ability.

My tally of Yes and No votes for acceptance are:

Yes votes (5) :

Niall Douglas ( conditional ), Julian Gonggrijp ( conditional ),
Frank Gennari, Phil Endecott, Paul Bristow.

No votes (3) :

Vladimir Prus, Adam Walling ( conditional ), Anthony Polukhin

I believe the condtional Yes vote from Julian Gonggrijp was completely
met in the discussions of issues with Steven Ross and the conditional
Yes vote from Niall Douglass was almost completely met in the discussion
with Steven Ross about the issues mentioned.

I want to also mention that the conditional No vote by Adam Walling has
an implied Yes vote to it if the Sort library were one among other sort

Since my final decision is not entirely based on the Yes and No votes I
want to adumbrate some of the major issues brought up by the review
without necessarily focussing on every one of the people who brought
them up initially, as well as my own reactions to them as Review Manager.

1) The first major issue was whether a library whose basic merit lies in
its algorithm and its speed/space constraints needs better theoretical
backing. A number of reviewers discussed this after it was brought up. I
tend to agree with reviewers that while the best theoretical basis is
always desirable, it is not necessary for a Boost library whose
empirical evidence can be and has been measured by its implementor and
can be measured by any user. Furthermore Steven Ross has provided an
extensive discussion in his documentation, as well as his original
paper, about the theoretical merits of his technique. While much of this
discussion is probably beyond the understanding of any but sorting
experts and afficionados ( I am neither ) enough of it adequately
explains the basic ideas behind SpreadSort for those who understand and
have knowledge of basic sorting ideas and popular sorting techniques (
that's my province ).

2) An important issue is the need for the Sorting library to provide
extensive timing charts/tables comparing SpreadSort to at least
std::sort ( and possibly other popular mainstream sorts ) with both
different numbers of sort keys and different initial unsorted

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at