Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-27 12:00:59
On 11/27/2014 6:07 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>> This is the results from the recent review of the Sort library of Steven
>> I do not know if the review manager has a say in this but based on the
>> remarks of the reviewers I would like to see the library as accepted be
>> named 'SpreadSort' rather than just 'Sort'. I do think that Boost can have
>> a library called 'Sort' but I agree with the general consensus that a
>> 'Sort' library needs more than one type of sorting algorithm. I would like
>> to see other people, who mentioned in the reviews/comments that they have
>> their own sorting implementation, also submit their own implementations to
>> Boost and, if this happens and they are accepted, I can see combining them
>> with 'SpreadSort' into a general Boost sorting library called 'Sort' in the
> We already have an "algorithm" directory, so it might make sense to add a
> "sort" sub-directory and category with "spreadsort" as the first specific
> sort to be added.
Do you mean a directory structure of:
... possible other sorts
Does this work with modular boost, submodules, and the Boost Build
system ? Hasn't there been lots of discussions of the difficulty of
having libraries other than directly under boost/libs ? If this is now
workable and been resolved, both via Git submodules and Boost Build, I
would agree with your suggestion but is there clear online documentation
in the modular boost wiki for setting this up ?
The reason I suggested that 'sort' just change to 'spreadsort' was to
avoid the above problems, but maybe those problems are now completely
resolved and I just have not kept up with the discussion. Also Steven
Ross will want to integrate 'spreadsort' into the modular boost
directory structure and since this is his first contribution to Boost we
need to make it understandable to him how to do this.
> For adding sorts that are just implementations of classic and well-studied
> sort algorithms, we need a lighter-weight mechanism than a full formal
> review, IMO.
I agree. I just wanted to make sure we don't add a sort algorithm
without any type of review just because it sounds helpful, should work,
and we already have a sort library.
> Edward, thanks for managing the review and producing such a well-done
You are very welcome.