João Abecasis <jpabecasis@gmail.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Thomas,
Do you have anything to add to the discussion on committing the new version of boost.range?
Sorry for the late reply my internet connectivity over the last few days was worse than expected.
Given the fact that we don't want destabilizing changes in feature freeze I would really like to move this to 1.35.
I dno't like it. For one, bug-fixes must be applied again in a freah-check out. Secondly, people will keep on using the wrong protocol for range conformance.
I've been following discussions on Range issues and the issues Thorsten was solving looked pretty serious. Boost.Range offers an important set of Concepts that users are encouraged to implement and extend.
IIUC, there were issues in the customization interface and both issues and fixes were discussed at length on the mailing lists. It seems very bad to have them wrong for another Boost release.
If it's just about naming in the customization interface, I don't think that's serious enough to hold up a release. If it's something deeper, then somebody had better explain it to us. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com