From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-07-17 19:53:28
On 2020-07-17 21:48, Jeff Trull via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:11 AM Jeff Garland <azswdude_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Maybe we could encourage the author to bring it to us as a 'tool' -- I
>> don't know that we need a review for that even. Regardless, I wasn't aware
>> of these -- cool!
> What concerns me about this approach is that the pretty-printers will
> quickly drift out of sync with the libraries themselves. In fact it has
> already happened - if you look at RÃ¼diger's repo you can see he had to
> incorporate a versioning scheme, as well as unit tests, to ensure the code
> stayed correct (one of the features I really like about his work). Some
> method where individual libraries produced visualizers that were combined
> at install time would be ideal, as they would be owned by each maintainer.
I can tell that putting the responsibility of keeping the pretty
printers actual on the library maintainer will not necessarily improve
the situation. Especially not if the library maintainer is not familiar
with the pretty printers know-how.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk