on Sun Nov 18 2007, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> wrote:
What I'm objecting to is that an author works hard to follow the stated standards for documentation and tries to discern the "standard practice" from examples, and submits his library for review, addresses all issues raised, and after years, has to deal with strident objections which could have and should have been raised during the review and could easily have been addressed at that time. Its unprofessional and boost has lots of examples of this.
In the case of your library review, the people participating simply didn't notice the problem. I don't see how you can claim there's anything unprofessional about that, especially in an open-source project where nobody's getting paid for his work. I'm truly sorry if you felt anyone's objections were strident. I know that I in particular sometimes have a way of putting people on the defensive, and I regret that. However, I do believe all the requests made were reasonable and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to make progress on them. As I wrote in http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2006/05/105195.php, I realized "that these problems can't be repaired all at once, but they should be fixed. I'd start by pushing boost/pfto.hpp into boost/detail, for example." -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com