Subject: Re: [boost] Feature suggestions for Boost's program_options
From: Eyal Rozenberg (eyalroz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-08-09 05:23:37
On 07-08-16 19:48, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:
>> - If you find some of them relevant, can you help estimate the
>> necessary development effort and possible negative
>> implications/caveats to consider?
> Have you looked at the code and checked that? Boost is an open source
> community, so the easiest way would probably be to just write it yourself.
I have just started to look through the code. I find that it is mostly
pre-C++11-style, perhaps even pre-C++03-style, coding; under-use of
generics and STL algorithms etc. In the bottom line, I feel that
implementation might not be overly hard, but it will also not be pretty,
piling the bit-of-a-mess higher by a bit more, even with my best
attempts. Yet I will certainly not have the time to suggest a major
refactoring. Which leaves me a bit uncertain what to do.
I had assume there is some Boost-wide coding standard and/or best
practices guide, which would tell me among other thing that if I do X I
also need to do Y and support Z and adhere to the use of constructs W1
and W2 and so on. Isn't there?
> I think not. You can just fork the library on github, implement the
> features and create a pull request there.
I've done the fork, but I don't know how to build it independently of
the rest of Boost (or with dependence on a release version of Boost not
including the library). Is there reasonable documentation on this? I've
heard the suggestion to use bcp and pull some of all-of-Boost; is that
> Though unlike my first PRs, they need to be clean, i.e. one feature per PR.
> If you do that, i.e.
> implement the feature, write a test and add documentation,
One PR per feature - no problem.
Testing, documentation for my code - also no problem.
What about lack of testing for the code earlier to mine?
> there's not
> much reason for the maintainer to not accept that. You can of course
> flag the PR as WIP, so that you show what you want to do and discuss it
> before wirting all the tests etc.
Also a good idea. Note, though, that some of the existing functionality
is not covered by tests itself.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk