"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:u1wv4avcl.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
It seems as though the OP may not be totally crazy, so we should evaluate his comments and see if the issues can be (or have been) addressed. The article is of course bad publicity for Boost, and I'd like to demonstrate responsiveness if possible.
One of boosts roles is to do research and development, the other is to establish existing practise. The R& D role inevitably results in the need to break an existing interface in the interest of providing a better one, however that is inevitably not going to go down well with existing users. Establishing existing practise demands a high level of stability. Perhaps there needs to be a clear policy on the procedure to follow to go about modifying the interface of a library once it is in the boost distribution. That might involve the library author putting up a clear statement of their intentions well before committing the mods, allowing existing users adequate time and simple facilities to respond. That probably wont satisfy those that dont read such notices, but at least it can be pointed out in the documentation for each library that such a facility exists, together with some general justification for why boost has to reserve the right to break interfaces, due to its R & D role. FWIW regards Andy Little