-----Original Message----- From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Niall Douglas Sent: 25 August 2015 18:28 To: boost-users@lists.boost.org; boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
On 25 Aug 2015 at 8:17, Robert Ramey wrote:
Please answer the following questions:
1. Should Boost.AFIO be accepted into Boost? Please state all conditions for acceptance explicity.
Provisionally, yes.
Requirements: <snip>
I read the provisional yes as meaning yes to how the library is roadmapped to look like in the future, and he recommends an additional mini-review at that point which could introduce yet another mini- review after again. In other words, he's saying fundamentally it's good, but needs a lot more work yet. Paul please do correct me if I am wrong in this interpretation.
Correct - and more - "that we wish and trust Niall to get it right - eventually." but "we want a veto if we *really strongly* object".
There is precedent for this: Boost.Fiber was provisionally approved here as a C++ 98 library with condition of a mini-review before entry. Boost.Fiber is now a C++ 14 library and sufficiently different from the library originally reviewed it may require a second mini-review if during its first mini-review it is felt still lacking.
I think this pattern of repeated mini-reviews caused by changes to the common implementations of the C++ standard rather than the libraries themselves is going to be very common next few years. All these changes to AFIO are almost entirely driven by changes since 2012 to the various WG21 technical standards. If they hadn't changed and C++ compilers (specifically MSVC) hadn't changed, AFIO wouldn't have changed. It's very similar for Fiber, which had to be refactored in the face of substantial changes in C++ 14.
Concur. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830