9 Jun
2006
9 Jun
'06
10 p.m.
Here is how I think that a review procedure could be improved: 1) It should be devided into at least five votes: A. Is the concept ok? Do we want SUCH a library in boost? B. Is the presented library a good starting point, or do we think we should start from scratch? C. Is the presented API of the library on the right track? D. Is the internal implementation on the right track? E. Is the documentation good enough for a boost library?
I like this - these are fairly orthogonal issues (except perhaps B, which C and D also address). They may deserve separate evaluations in a review, to make it more clear what should be done with the library from here. -- Leland