Jeff Flinn wrote:
On 10/9/2013 12:41 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
Daryle Walker wrote:
From: ramey@rrsd.com ... I'm still thinking that boost multi-array is not appreciated to the extent that it should be. I would like to see it enhanced to accomodate
I wish this thread had come up 3-4months ago. Unlike you I couldn't grok the docs to use multi-array as a back end to a Qt table where I needed to support run time row/col insertion/deletion. I was under time constraints and found it much easier to build my own facilities. I'm not sure whether it was due to docs or design.
Well, I did come to understand it pretty well. But I really have to say I spent a LOT of time poring over the documentation, experimenting etc. The oddest thing to me is that now it seems easy to me and I can't figure out what I spent the time on - we're talking a few days. I had the same experience (only worse) with units library. Actually I have this experience with almost every boost library I use. This brings up the whole question of documentation of boost libraries and in fact documentation of computer libraries in general. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this lately. I feel we've been too lax in accepting libraries after the review whose documentation isn't up to some minimum standard (not that we have a standard). Robert Ramey