Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-31 00:10:50
On 31/05/2017 09:38, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
>> 3. Under the assumption that error_code_extended's use of a static
>> global ring buffer would be controversial in this review, I hacked a
>> quick and dirty solution expecting to have to remove it. Now we know
>> that few disapprove, a more serious implementation will be needed.
> I am not sure of that. It was my impression that many potential reviewers
> were put off by documentation and legal/structural issues, and stopped with
> their review at that point. Once you have move thes obstacles out of the
> way, you will likely draw more reviewers, and who knows what they have to
> say about the ring buffer.
FWIW, I don't have a problem with the ring buffer per se, but I think
it's currently too small to be effective.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk