Markus Werle wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Markus Werle wrote:
I drop into this discussion here because for future changes of the boost library I'd like to see some rules established that disallow such header magic for well-established, mature parts of boost. Oh man! Here I go again: If you have some problems, please do as a we normally do: post a minimal cpp file that exhibits the problem. Better yet, submit a trac ticket. Otherwise, I can never every know what the problem really is.
First of all: I am sorry to add to your frustration here. You did not deserve this, since the work you do for us all outweighs *any* pain we might have with one of your libraries. So I am in a beggars position anyway.
No apologies needed. This thread you replied to was intended to clarify one point: Robert's statement that the new header structure causes breakage. I think the confusion is that so many issues are bundled together into one. That is why I renamed the title of this thread to focus on only that specific issue: 1) I said we want 100% backward compatibility while at the same time usher in the new generation. 2) Robert says it was a "failure" and gave a narative of the events leading to his conclusion that the include strategy causes code breakage, hence, not 100% backward compatible. 3) I asked for a minimal cpp file that exhibits the problem.
All I am trying to do is give you the feedback about some issues about decisions which were made to ease user's life, but probably do not always completely reach this goal as expected.
Fair enough. I'll try to reply to each of your points below. It's unfortunate that the focus is lost again, but, anyway...
1. A lot of Confusion is due to some _minor_ potential for improvement in the docs.
2. Spirit-2b is a break-all-of-the-interface-change. Merging it with the old Spirit was the wrong decision.
Here are some details:
1. I was mislead by the directory structure of spirit:
When I had obtained the new boost version I directly went to libs/spirit/index.html and found the Spirit-2b docs.
See my other post too. No, that is wrong. BOOST_ROOT/libs/spirit/index.html still (as of 1.37) points to the classic documents. You must be confusing it with the one in the trunk.
OK, so Spirit-2b is a first class citizen and the preferred version to use?
No. Not at this point.
No, I got it wrong. From the ML I learned you had taken measures to make migration as smooth as possible.
Also I found: <cite thread="[spirit2] Documentation?">
[Joel writes:] Caveat: It's a work in progress. I hope we can finally find the time to complete the docs. </cite>
I really do not understand, why the beta version of the library Spirit-2b has its beta docs at the *standard* place libs/spirit/index.html while Spirit-1 is what I get
Check the Boost 1.37 again, please. The *standard* place libs/spirit/index.html *HAS* spirit-1.
when I #include <boost/spirit.hpp>. So I felt uncomfortable.
Which also has Spirit1.
More uncertainity when you come from http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0: Now you are pointed to http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/libs/spirit/classic/index.html.
Again, Spirit1.
Sigh. That's really uncool. Really. It made me *feel* something was broken here, even if it is not.
Agreed.
Confusion also due to this: The place of the Spirit-2b docs indicates to me that Spirit-2b is the preferred library to use from now on,
No. It is not.
but at the same time you write in the ML that there are performance issues and that the docs are incomplete. Also Spirit-1 still is the first class citizen regarding the header files.
I think most *confusion* can be erased if libs/spirit/index.html had some explanatory text
That is a good idea, but that is not the case. As far as the release is concerned. Perhaps we can do that for the trunk to avoid further confusion.
(copy'n'paste from all of your many many postings and include portions of the change log) about what is what and which version is where, just in order to help people decide which version of spirit to use and HOW to use it.
Sure. Ok.
Also 1_37_0/libs/spirit/classic/change_log.html says "For more details about this change please consult the documentation." But which documentation is meant? The new one? The old one? Any links?
Ok.
2. Spirit-2b is a break-all-of-the-interface-change. I understand that some people prefer it to be in directory spirit2 and you prefer it to be merged with spirit-1. I respect your opinion and your freedom but I strongly disagree.
Right now, a developer can update/enhance/improve his library anyway he sees fit without further review. If you or anyone else want to change the rules, work on it actively. Writing a draft proposal is a good first step. I'll abide by the rules when we have them. For now, we don't have such a rule.
Since Spirit-1 is very important, I am happy to hear it will stay in boost for a looong time. I have so much code depending on spirit-1 I cannot afford a removal of spirit-1 from boost.
I am not the only one. So you cannot deprecate the usage of Spirit-1,
Spirit-1 is *NOT* deprecated. Only the old headers are deprecated.
due to so many people using it around the world. Spirit-1 and Spirit-2 must stay inside the boost distro side-by-side. This is the key point.
Where we disagree is the semantics of side-by-side. IMHO spirit/home/classic/* and spirit/* are not side-by-side. IMHO spirit/ and spirit2/ is truly side-by-side.
You wrote a new library. It retakes the ideas of spirit-1. It uses completely different concepts. It is based on new cool stuff like fusion/proto/etc. . It has a completely different interface. It introduces many many new features and functionality.
For me this library (which you call Spirit-2) is something so fundamentally new, it should a) undergo some review (at least concerning the interface) b) reside in its own directory
Again, if you want to see the rules changed. Work on it. Advocacy is good. You can start with a formal proposal for discussion. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net