Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost

Subject: Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-19 23:41:40

On 11/19/17 2:34 PM, Jonathan Coe via Boost wrote:

>> Source Code
>> ===========
>> OK - I'm nit picking here.  I found the extensive usage of white space meant that I could only display about 20 lines of my code on my monitor. I would have found less blank lines and more {} added to other lines a big help in being able to read the code.   I don't want for this to go on a tangent which ends up at the tabs/spaces cul-de-sac. So don't feel the need to respond to this.
>>
>> Soooooooo - In my humble opinion, this submission needs more work before it could seriously considered for review as a boost library.
>>
>> Robert Ramey
>>
>>
> 
> Thanks Robert,
> 
> that’s really helpful.
> I definitely need to do some work on documentation with some more fleshed out usage examples.
> 
> I’ll happily reformat source to make it boost-ish. Is there a clang-format file that people (or maybe just you) tend to use?

LOL - I'm not going to suggest anything specific as that well get off 
into the boost reality distortion field.  These are people who will 
break up with their coder girlfriends over tabs vs spaces.

The general point is that you have to "sell" the library.  Bombast isn't 
necessary (though it seems to work for Vinnie).  It has to slip in 
really easily.  You look it over a little, get interested, and before 
you realize it, you've consumed it.

FWIW - my presentation at CPPCon 2015 - How you can make a boost library 
summarizes my views on the subject.  Bump the speed to save time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACeNgqBKL7E

Also the boost library incubator may have some useful information.

The main thing to remember is that getting something accepted by Boost 
is quite different than getting it accepted by the standards committee.

a) The boost process discourages stuff that no one is using
b) the boost process discourages stuff for which the use case isn't obvious.
c) The boost process is much, much faster than the committee process.
d) Both are seriously frustrating
e) Both are tedious - more work involved than one would think.  But the 
committee process is even more dry and tedious.

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Jon
> 
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>