On 3/14/17 6:22 PM, degski via Boost wrote:
On 14 March 2017 at 15:53, Robert Ramey via Boost
I've been following the review of safe numerics lib closely. What strikes me is that some really fundamental criticisme comes up, the author himself states things need to be re-thought, floats are no more than an after-thought, the stated purpose of this library is ambiguous (I'm paraphrasing RR here), and still, still, reviewers vote to get it accepted. Why?
The reviewers with such reservations indicate that it should be accepted subject to the indicated shortcomings be addressed before the library is admitted into boost. The majority of libraries accepted into boost are done so under these kinds of conditions. This is the way it has always been. A much more interesting question: Why did you not submit a review yourself? I think it would have been helpful to me as an author and to you in better understanding your own concerns.
Robert Ramey gave a presentation (Cppcon15 (16?)) regarding the process people go through picking a library. I though it was interesting, because (at the time I did not know RR was the author of the serialization lib), I went through this process and rejected his library for exactly the reasons he pointed out in his presentation,
LOL - so I guess the presentation useful to you.
picking cereal ( https://uscilab.github.io/cereal/index.html) in stead. A one page manual, header only. I solved my problem 5 minutes later. I've never looked back.
BGL no!, the same, using lemon instead... (I like food apparently :-) )
I'm not sure I get the above - but it's likely off topic anyway. Robert Ramey