Re: [safe_numerics] needs a mini-review

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-10 15:40:54

On 10/9/20 9:57 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 10/9/20 8:34 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> 
>> In that case, I commit to doing a private mini-review of safe_numerics :)
> 
> Your feedback is always welcome.  Your "conditions" pointed to all the 
> stuff that need work. Without your work as review manager, I doubt that 
> the library would ever have been completed.
>> Regards,
>> &rzej;

Hmmm - thinking about this a little more and going over the text of the 
boost rules, (I'm a originalist and textualist), I would think that that 
the review manager could include in his list of conditions that that the 
library undergo a "mini-review" (whatever that might mean) before final 
acceptance.  Soooo it looks like we've already got all cases covered: a 
library which is already almost perfect and just needs a few tweaks is 
just added in when the developer things he's done.  At the other hand, 
some library which is more of a proof of concept, might be accepted 
subject to a condition which says it needs a "mini-review".  No need 
what so ever to mess with boost rules.

Robert Ramey

>>
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> &rzej;
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>