[safe_numerics] needs a mini-review

From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-09 04:28:59

czw., 8 paź 2020 o 19:18 Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
napisał(a):

>
> As author of two boost libraries, I can offer a little perspective.
>
> My second offering is the safe numerics library. It had some loose ends
> but was considered sufficiently implemented to accept. And so it was.
> Apparently, it was not that interesting for enough people to craft
> objections to.  WHat happened next?
>
> You guessed it.  cleaning up the "loose ends", unraveled the whole
> library implementation.  Even worse, it impacted that type requirements
> (concepts) which the library specified.  It was almost like starting
> from scratch again. About the only thing left unscathed was the
> documentation. When I got it back together, I merged into boost
> development branch.  .... and the it is.  No one objected to this.  In
> fact, no one even noticed. Did I do the right thing? Should I have asked
> for another review?  You decide.  I'm wondering if it got accepted in
> large part due the documentation.  As usual, I don't have point here -
> just like to keep the pot boiling.
>

The review result of Safe Numerics library was that it is conditionally
accepted:
https://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2017/03/233511.php

My understanding of the process is that as the next steps:
1. The author applies the indicated conditions and reports readiness for a
mini-review.
2. A mini-review is scheduled. Its purpose is to determine if the
conditions have been satisfied
3. If the review passes, the author has green light to release their
library as part of Boost libraries.

I read your message as saying that safe_numerics is ready for a
mini-review. Is that correct?

Regards,
&rzej;