Robert wrote:
I hope [Ahmed] can find enough time to [manage the review]. I'm sure that it's more than he thought he was signing up for.
In my view Ahmed's job is _potentially_ quite easy: I think Niall is a smart and big enough guy to realise that even if he applies a discount factor to those reviews that he thinks are overly-hostile due to a personality clash, the general consensus is still not strong enough to an "accept" at this time, and therefore a withdrawal is appropriate. He could come back with a plan - "here's what I am going to change, here's what I am going to keep the same" and hopefully get some immediate feedback. Maybe some will say "sorry, you not changing X is a showstopper" and Niall can choose whether he wants to pursue with the changes. If he wants to pursue, we re-review. Personally I like the library and would be minded to accept regardless of whether Niall chose to keep his "shared" style or switch to the "standard" style outlined by Thomas Heller (and apologies if I am pushing anyone's buttons by calling it "standard"). That seems to be the only substantive design issue - the rest - the namespaces, the #if 0, parts of the documentation, the irrelevant v1, is basically bike-shedding stuff that could be changed after an accept. Finally whilst I'm up on the soapbox, I'd urge you, Niall, to just be a bit more careful with how you come across sometimes. What I view as enthusiasm for code and love for talking about code and coding, does seems to comes across less well with others. E.g. are you offending others by appearing to speak for them or implicitly denigrating their efforts by highlighting your own? [I am sure this sounds like you are having your hard work such as the "best practices handbook" thrown back in your face, but honestly I am only trying to improve the environment in which any further review might take place] Nice job with AFIO! Pete