"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"David Abrahams" wrote
"Paul A Bristow" writes:
What design changes would persuade you to vote for this attempt?
I haven't looked at enough of it to know if there are other issues, but in order to resolve my problems with the issues I've raised:
Clarity and conformance to Boost/C++ standards and conventions.
To be honest David, I am finding this quite difficult to handle. On the one hand I think the PQS library is good, there seems to be interest and a need. On the other hand, at least unofficially, Boost is your party
I don't know what that means. I am one of several moderators; it's not "mine."
and my impression is that for whatever reason you wouldnt be too happy about this library becoming part of boost.
No, not for "whatever reasons," for exactly the reasons I posted. It seems like you're not responding to what I wrote, but something else. I would even be open to being convinced to change my vote, if the author exhibited sufficient interest in and responsiveness to my concerns. I haven't looked at the code, but I really like the idea of what this library does, and it probably has a pretty nice interface -- at the code level.
Coincidentally nor would I. The situation with PQS is that to do it justice would take more time than I am prepared to invest.
Wow. Why did you submit it?
I would also need to learn a lot about the internals of boost which would tie me in deeper than I wish. I have spent a lot of time, particularly on the documentation, over the past few months, but unfortunately writing documentation doesnt come easy to me
Nor to most people. Writing documentation takes a great deal of attention, and anyone submitting a Boost library should be prepared to spend at least as long documenting as coding.
and I think I would find it quite difficult to complete to the required standard, at least without a huge investment of time. ( At the end of the day I am basically an average part-timecoder that somehow got involved way above my level)
I think the best solution in light of your comments is to withdraw PQS from consideration and hope that someone else more in touch with the boost way comes forward with a Units library.
Funnily enough I think both you and I would feel much happier that way.
That's not funny at all, and it's not what I'd like at all. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I thought I made it clear that "I hope we'll be able to accept a different version of this library" and also that my negative vote was made with regret. If you do decide to simply withdraw without making improvements, I'll be sorry. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com