[disjoint_sets] 1.49.0 docs out-of-date? pending?
I noticed that http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/disjoint_sets/disjoint_sets.html references boost/disjoint_sets.hpp but, AFAICS, no such file exists; however, clicking on the file nonetheless redirects to boost/pending/disjoint_sets.hpp which presumably is the intended reference. So, aside from what looks like a slight error in the present disjoint_sets docs, what is the purpose of this pending directory? I had never noticed it before and I don't remember stumbling upon a reference to it until now. Looks like it contains a hodgepodge of miscellaneous headers... Thanks, - Jeff
On 17 April 2012 01:21, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
So, aside from what looks like a slight error in the present disjoint_sets docs, what is the purpose of this pending directory? I had never noticed it before and I don't remember stumbling upon a reference to it until now. Looks like it contains a hodgepodge of miscellaneous headers...
Coincidentally, I noticed this about disjoint_sets last week. The pending directory was used to store headers for libraries that hadn't been reviewed, which seems to be the case for disjoint sets. I'm going to remove it from the library list on the site, but the headers should remain, as other parts of boost depend on them. I'm not sure what to do with the library directory and documentation though. I don't like that it has a library directory, but also don't want to delete it and I don't know where to put it. I suppose if we go ahead with modularization, then it's probably best to wait until then. I'll probably add a note and fix the header in the documentation before the next release though.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2012 01:21, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
So, aside from what looks like a slight error in the present disjoint_sets docs, what is the purpose of this pending directory? I had never noticed it before and I don't remember stumbling upon a reference to it until now. Looks like it contains a hodgepodge of miscellaneous headers...
Coincidentally, I noticed this about disjoint_sets last week. The pending directory was used to store headers for libraries that hadn't been reviewed, which seems to be the case for disjoint sets. I'm going to remove it from the library list on the site, but the headers should remain, as other parts of boost depend on them. I'm not sure what to do with the library directory and documentation though. I don't like that it has a library directory, but also don't want to delete it and I don't know where to put it. I suppose if we go ahead with modularization, then it's probably best to wait until then. I'll probably add a note and fix the header in the documentation before the next release though.
Isn't disjoint set used by Boost.Graph (and written by the same team)? Maybe the documentation should be under boost.graph, the same way that phoenix was hosted under spirit for a long time before being reviewed. -- gpd
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2012 01:21, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
So, aside from what looks like a slight error in the present disjoint_sets docs, what is the purpose of this pending directory? I had never noticed it before and I don't remember stumbling upon a reference to it until now. Looks like it contains a hodgepodge of miscellaneous headers...
Coincidentally, I noticed this about disjoint_sets last week. The pending directory was used to store headers for libraries that hadn't been reviewed, which seems to be the case for disjoint sets. I'm going to remove it from the library list on the site, but the headers should remain, as other parts of boost depend on them. I'm not sure what to do with the library directory and documentation though. I don't like that it has a library directory, but also don't want to delete it and I don't know where to put it. I suppose if we go ahead with modularization, then it's probably best to wait until then. I'll probably add a note and fix the header in the documentation before the next release though.
Isn't disjoint set used by Boost.Graph (and written by the same team)? Maybe the documentation should be under boost.graph, the same way that phoenix was hosted under spirit for a long time before being reviewed.
I think that is probably where it belongs, as long as no other libraries are using it. There are other things in pending/ that should be moved into graph/ as well. -- Jeremiah Willcock
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Jeremiah Willcock <jewillco@osl.iu.edu>wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2012 01:21, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <jeffrey.hellrung@gmail.com> wrote:
So, aside from what looks like a slight error in the present disjoint_sets docs, what is the purpose of this pending directory? I had never noticed it before and I don't remember stumbling upon a reference to it until now. Looks like it contains a hodgepodge of miscellaneous headers...
Coincidentally, I noticed this about disjoint_sets last week. The pending directory was used to store headers for libraries that hadn't been reviewed, which seems to be the case for disjoint sets. I'm going to remove it from the library list on the site, but the headers should remain, as other parts of boost depend on them. I'm not sure what to do with the library directory and documentation though. I don't like that it has a library directory, but also don't want to delete it and I don't know where to put it. I suppose if we go ahead with modularization, then it's probably best to wait until then. I'll probably add a note and fix the header in the documentation before the next release though.
Isn't disjoint set used by Boost.Graph (and written by the same team)? Maybe the documentation should be under boost.graph, the same way that phoenix was hosted under spirit for a long time before being reviewed.
I think that is probably where it belongs, as long as no other libraries are using it. There are other things in pending/ that should be moved into graph/ as well.
I think that gives my colleague enough context to proceed. Thanks for your responses! - Jeff
participants (4)
-
Daniel James -
Giovanni Piero Deretta -
Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. -
Jeremiah Willcock