David Abrahams wrote:
The sins of the past do not justify making the same mistake again. IMO we have recently allowed too many libraries into Boost with inadequate documentation and especially with a muddled expression of generic programming, which is too poorly understood in the C++ community at large. For years, Boost set the standard for generic programming outside the STL, and that standard has recently become diluted.
I can't speak to the quality of boost documentation, but I'd like to support the principle that good documentation is crucial. In fact, I'd say that the documentation *is* the library, and the code is merely one possible implementation of the library. I do not know whether I will be able to provide a full review of PQS, but I will say that I find it difficult to vote yes with the documentation in its current state. I would like to see, at the very least, the documentation revised according to all the suggestions that have been made already and the library resubmitted.