Subject: Re: [boost] [review] **NEXT WEEK** Review of Outcome (starts Fri-19-May)
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-14 14:41:37
Niall Douglas wrote:
> > The code has a "boost-lite" submodule. Is that part of the review?
> In terms of public API, only the single part of boost-lite's API exposed
> in Outcome's public API which is boost-lite::tribool, which I exposed
> specially into the reference docs at
> (Outcome provides ternary based logic as an extension. If the peer review
> desires, we can fake hide tribool into namespace boost::outcome)
> Boost-lite provides the cmake based build, config, test, Boost.Test
> alternative, install, partial preprocess single header include generation
> and much of the internal implemention classes used by Outcome. However if
> accepted then Outcome would gain a Boost.Build veneer and be auto
> generated by script from the standalone Outcome same as Boost.ASIO is, and
> so I figure none of that is in scope for this review.
This doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
When a library enters Boost and is distributed in Boost releases, there's no
longer any point of it duplicating Boost functionality under the hood
(without a very good reason); while not requiring Boost is understandable
for standalone use, in a Boost release Boost is by definition already
> then Outcome would [...] be auto generated by script from the standalone
> Outcome same as Boost.ASIO is
carries the unfortunate implication that Outcome in Boost may be, similarly
to Boost.ASIO, a second-class citizen that may lag behind the "real" Outcome
where the real development occurs.
> then Outcome would gain a Boost.Build veneer...
libraries are much easier to review if they are already in their final Boost
form, ready to be copied into $BOOST_ROOT/libs/$library. It's understandable
that people don't want to invest into that final step until the library is
accepted... but it should also be understandable that going that extra mile
is a sign of commitment that speaks positively about the author and can
therefore tilt reviewers toward acceptance.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk