Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira (vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-30 19:22:22

2018-01-30 14:56 GMT-03:00 Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> 2. The source code is generated from another project with a different
> license.
>

Good point. Niall should do something about that. But then, why "rejected"
instead "conditional acceptance"? It should be fairly easy to fix it.

3. The Boost policy gives library authors practically unlimited
> discretion to make any
>     changes they want after their library has been accepted. I have
> seen endless public
>     examples where the author quarrels with other developers. I am
> concerned that
>     after acceptance, Outcome will generate significant conflict over
> the odd choices
>     which the author will unquestionably make and implement (as
> evidence by the odd
>     choices the author has made in the past).
>

I thought the official purpose of Boost review was to find design flaws and
improve the library design. I do understand there is this status symbol
around it, but let's not make it the official purpose with statements like
the one you're raising. Let's at least pretend the only reason for the
review is to find design flaws.

“As society lost its ability to act, social life and culture trod the road
to decadence.”

4. This library is too complicated for what it does: policies are
> unnecessary.
>

I'm pretty confident the SG "give me UB everywhere" 14 folks will deeply
disagree with you, but I think Niall himself could elaborate more on this
point as I believe he is in constant contact with them.

Maybe macros could be used instead templatized policies, but this would
hardly deliver the hard ABI requirements the library tries to provide.

I recognize that some of these reasons may be considered outside the
> scope of the
> review process (for example, considering the qualities of the author
> in addition to the
> library). I think they are relevant.
>

Noted.

This review is late for a number of reasons. Among which: I was
> expecting a significant
> number of people to reject it. At the very least, the people who
> rejected the last submission.
>

Maybe because these people voted against mainly for technical reasons (the
null state insanity for instance!). All of which have been resolved in v2:
https://github.com/ned14/outcome#changes-since-v1

-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://vinipsmaker.github.io/