on Thu Jan 01 2009, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz?
The choice to do these together came from a discussion on the list when they were submitted. Since Anthony's submission is an implementation of the proposal for the standard, his interface is fixed for him, and the thought from the discussion was we should at least look at what the standard is adding. Braddock's submission differs somewhat, and people wanted a chance to have a boost library that was different from the proposal, if it proved superior.
Sorry if you missed out on that, but it was several months ago. Ron and I just went with the desires of those who commented.
BTW: After long and honorable service, Tom stepped down as a review wizard a bit more than a year ago. I'm sure he would have plenty to offer if he wanted it back, but as far as I know, he hasn't asked to be re-appointed.
Sorry to have lost track of all this a bit. Regardless, it seems like this has potential for a great deal of confusion and I was wondering if the actual review wizards can do anything more to make it go smoothly. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com