Subject: Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-09-27 12:42:15
On 9/27/2017 2:03 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On 27 September 2017 at 00:43, Joaquin M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ... but libraries, in my opinion, should start with a minimal and
>> well grounded design and add more stuff as demand proves their need.
> This sounds good in theory, but doesn't work like that in practice.
> Libraries tend to get "stuck" in their inital state.
> As an example of this: I recently proposed to add variadic move
> construction for nodes to boost::pool (a trivial change). And even though
> this has obvious advantages (and would get rid for C++11 capable compilers
> of the use of M4 to generate the necessary code), this was received with:
> file a PR, including tests (?) and change to documentation. Enough to put
> me off, so I just changed it locally.
The pool library has no official maintainer so it had been added to the
CMT libraries. You would probably have gotten more response to your
suggestion if pool had an official maintainer. I do not think that is
much proof that libraries tend to get "stuck" in their initial state,
although it happens some of the time. C++ inheritance often means that
you can add functionality to a library via another library or your own
one-off class(es). But I agree that the initial notion that a library
should have a well grounded design, although "minimal" is highly
subjective, is a good one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk