On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Actually, the disclaimer is a lot more interesting. Suppose that boost asked for (a less provacatively worded) disclaimer for authors who want to be able to do this. Something like:
".... library is a new library. As it becomes more widely used, and we get more feed back from real users. We expect that we may want to make some modifications to some of the interface and/or sematics of the library. We will endeavor to avoid this, but sh*t happens. So please be aware of this and double check the documentation and release notes when moving to a more recent version of this library. Perhaps in the future, we will be able to guarentee that the interface/semantics of the library will not change."
more or less
One of the stated purposes of Boost is as a test bed for libraries before they are considered for standardization. So I don't think that the disclaimer says anything new. I think that instead of formal disclaimer, we can adopt some kind of rating for the stability/matureness of each library. Something like "new" / "mature" / "stable"? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode