Larry Evans wrote:
A "programmer's manual" describing, at least briefly, the implementation, would help future redesigners find their way and avoid the pain of reinventing yet another wheel. This was called "technical notes" before:
I disagree. Such a manual would be a possibly considerable additional effort with minimal returns. If someone feels the need to reimplement a part of a Boost library, they might as well read and understand the code. However, better comments in the code that explain the confusing parts (and the Boost libraries contain lots of confusing and roundabout code) would be generally a good idea, simply for future code maintenance and debugging. Thinking about it, I'm probably just arguing that such a manual should not be an external document ... Sebastian Redl