Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] Comments on documentation
From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-10 04:18:09
On 8/04/2019 01:07, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Bjorn Reese wrote:
>> What about my questions about a tutorial and design rationale? Those
>> are genuine questions. I am trying to understand if their absence is
>> deliberate or due to lack of time.
> The absence of a tutorial and a design rationale are not deliberate, in
> the sense that I don't believe that the documentation is better without
> them. Lack of time is more correct.
Absence of a tutorial is fine (I'm sure most people know how variants
are supposed to work in general, especially as you're using
mostly-compatible interface and behaviour as std::variant), but more
motivation and/or design rationale would be nice.
Perhaps in lieu of a more focused design rationale section (given time
constraints), you could just include a link to
recently posted by Michael)?
I assume that your initial arguments there still apply to this
implementation, and it seems like useful background information and/or
motivation. (Although it then goes on to talk about unrelated things,
and obviously at least some of your thinking has changed over time.)
And probably most users (like me) would be unaware of the paper otherwise.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk