----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Ramey"
My view is that it is good practice to consider breaking an interface should be considered a bug.
Does your view accepts that exceptionally a well documented breaking change with a reasoable deprecated period could not be considered a bug?
Well, if its intentional, it's by definition not a bug - its a feature.
Right. <snip>
Actually, I'm thinking the the a library author face entirely different problems.
Do you mean the user and the author of course.
a library author want's to cover as much ground (compilers, user errors, use cases, etc) as possible. So suggestions like don't break an interface,
I think that this guideline is implicit on the other guidelines, but I could add it explicitly.
use things like boost/config,
How boost/config helps on maintenace?
Use Boost.Concepts to help your find mistakes in library usage, etc. are to him.
Could you detail how Concepts helps on mantenance?
a user want's to get done with as little as trouble and suprises as possible. So suggestions like avoiding "using" are helpful. For users, I'm thinking of suggestions similar to "Effective C++, oriented to boost. Any writing "Effective Boost"?
Could you be more precise? Best, Vicente