Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results

On 11/27/2014 6:07 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Edward Diener wrote:

...

This is the results from the recent review of the Sort library of Steven Ross.

...

...

I do not know if the review manager has a say in this but based on the remarks of the reviewers I would like to see the library as accepted be named 'SpreadSort' rather than just 'Sort'. I do think that Boost can have a library called 'Sort' but I agree with the general consensus that a 'Sort' library needs more than one type of sorting algorithm. I would like to see other people, who mentioned in the reviews/comments that they have their own sorting implementation, also submit their own implementations to Boost and, if this happens and they are accepted, I can see combining them with 'SpreadSort' into a general Boost sorting library called 'Sort' in the future.

We already have an "algorithm" directory, so it might make sense to add a "sort" sub-directory and category with "spreadsort" as the first specific sort to be added.

Do you mean a directory structure of: boost libs algorithm sort spreadsort ... possible other sorts ? Does this work with modular boost, submodules, and the Boost Build system ? Hasn't there been lots of discussions of the difficulty of having libraries other than directly under boost/libs ? If this is now workable and been resolved, both via Git submodules and Boost Build, I would agree with your suggestion but is there clear online documentation in the modular boost wiki for setting this up ? The reason I suggested that 'sort' just change to 'spreadsort' was to avoid the above problems, but maybe those problems are now completely resolved and I just have not kept up with the discussion. Also Steven Ross will want to integrate 'spreadsort' into the modular boost directory structure and since this is his first contribution to Boost we need to make it understandable to him how to do this.

For adding sorts that are just implementations of classic and well-studied sort algorithms, we need a lighter-weight mechanism than a full formal review, IMO.

I agree. I just wanted to make sure we don't add a sort algorithm without any type of review just because it sounds helpful, should work, and we already have a sort library.

Edward, thanks for managing the review and producing such a well-done report!

You are very welcome.