Subject: Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] Last three days
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-10 16:40:57
On 3/10/17 12:24 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> We have three last days remaining for safe_numerics review (till March
> 11th). If you like working under time pressure, this is the perfect moment
> for doing your review.
> If you would like to submit your review, but feel you will not make it till
> March 11th, let me know, we can try to extend the review period.
> Currently, I recorder three reviews with a yes/no call, from Paul A.
> Bristow and Steven Watanabe, and one without a yes/no call from Vicente J.
> Botet Escriba. If you have submitted a review, but were not mentioned in my
> list, please let me know: it means I must have missed it.
The review process has been extremely helpful to me. Besides the
multitude of dumb errors, documentation oversights, spelling errors,
etc. It's smoked out a number of really fundamental errors and issues.
Of course this is discouraging. But none of them are too difficult to
fix - though a little time consuming.
Summary of Review so Far
Steve Watanabee went over the whole damn thing with a fine tooth comb
and generated a long list of stuff to fix and address. I seriously
doubt anyone will surpass that in level of detail and understanding.
Still he recommended acceptance subject to a long list of fixes,
corrections, clarifications etc. being addressed. I'm in agreement with
all of them. I've been working on these.
Vicente - brought up a number of issues related to the library design,
concept, and purpose. In particular the difference of approach between
this library and other proposals presented to the C++ committee. These
approaches aren't really reconcilable. But there's always more than one
way to skin the C++ cat (note: This is a well worn saying not meant to
be taken literally. Specifically I'm not referring to the actual CPP
cat described here https://twitter.com/CppCon/status/779074829303504896
) This is an important, but under appreciated topic. It's totally OK
for different views to be implemented. In fact, it's actually a
necessity. Note that there is a GSOC project mentored by boost which
implements the proposals before the committee. I'm happy with letting
Darwin's theory sort it all out.
Paul's review was very cursory. But it's clear that I've been able to
communicate the idea of the library, how it is meant to be used and it's
potential for addressing real world problems.
I'm still waiting on John Maddock's review. Now that I know that from
Steven's review that there are a number of serious bugs and oversights,
I'm sort of embarassed to have it reviewed. But I'm sure he will have
something valuable to contribute.
I don't know that we'll get many more reviews on this. Apparently the
topic is kind of a turn off. (It is actually if you think about it)
Naill expressed this well.
So I would suggest that the review period be extended just through this
weekend to monday. The review manager on his own initiative can just
state that the review is officially closed but he's happy to receive
reviews through monday. I don't think that this would be a big problem
I'm very, very concerned that there are only a very few reviews
(actually really just one !!!). In the past I've railed against the
acceptance of libraries with only two reviews !!! I don't really know
what else to say about this. I'll just punt to the review manager.
I'm gratified that the review hasn't pivoted off into space with huge
discussions about names (aka bike shedding), library re-design, and
other mostly distracting and irrelevant topics. Except for having my
personal blunders pointed out in a public forum, it's been a pretty
pleasant an enlighting experience. It's things like this which make me
love Boost and give me hope for the future of C++ and our craft in
general - in spite of massive amounts of bad quality code and products.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk