Re: [boost] Breaking existing libraries
Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks. Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.
I have been absolutely swamped in the last two days and will not have the time to write up any responses until much later today. Having said that, do you think it's worth my time? It doesn't seem really like we're getting anywhere.
[Re-post to the correct thread.]
Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks. Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.
I have been absolutely swamped in the last two days and will not have the time to write up any responses until much later today. Having said that, do you think it's worth my time? It doesn't seem really like we're getting anywhere.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Tomas Puverle < Tomas.Puverle@morganstanley.com> wrote:
[Re-post to the correct thread.]
Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks. Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.
I have been absolutely swamped in the last two days and will not have the time to write up any responses until much later today. Having said that, do you think it's worth my time? It doesn't seem really like we're getting anywhere.
I would like to encourage you to post so that as those of us attempting to resolve the remaining issues can be as confident as possible that the conclusion would be one with which you would be satisified. My own involvement will simply be to ensure that RangeEx is 100% compatible with whatever changes occur to Boost.Range. Haing read this thread carefully I am confident that many Boost contributors have listened to your comments and have immediately begun to address the short-term and longer-term issues. I fully expect to have an "old behaviour" class to compliment iterator_range ready for the vault within a week or two. Your email gives the impression that somehow the response has been unsatisfactory. What is it that you additionally expect to occur? Regards, Neil Groves
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
I would like to encourage you to post so that as those of us attempting to resolve the remaining issues
Neil, Thank you for the encouragment. I tried responding to all relevant posts tonight.
I fully expect to have an "old behaviour" class to compliment iterator_range ready for the vault within a week or two.
I appreciate your efforts - having said that, please don't implement it on my behalf. I have to find a workable solution sooner than that. iterator_range provided me and my users with some niceties. I now have to go and re-evaluate my design. However, I am confident we will look at and use your library once it's in boost.
Your email gives the impression that somehow the response has been unsatisfactory. What is it that you additionally expect to occur?
Sometimes it seemed that people were not willing to see that different use cases exist - and posting here sometimes feels like stirring a hornets' nest. Thinking about any positives to take away, I see the following: a) I've learnt a few things b) there are people here who are still interested in helping and collaboration. The negatives: Too much arguing about fringe issues, which completely obscures the relevant discussion Best regards, Tom
on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:
Too bad, and just when I thought we were getting down to brass tacks. Well, maybe Tom would care to weigh in on these issues; I'm still making an effort to figure out how best to resolve them.
I have been absolutely swamped in the last two days and will not have the time to write up any responses until much later today. Having said that, do you think it's worth my time?
I do.
It doesn't seem really like we're getting anywhere.
Aside from skirmishes over the meaning of life, I thought the opposite. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Aside from skirmishes over the meaning of life, I thought the opposite.
This isn't intended as a jibe, but what do you think is the outcome of the discussion so far? It seems like we've agreed on nothing. Nothing is changing. I don't feel like we've achieved much. My only hope is that at least people will be more mindful of changing things in the future. At least that would be some kind of result.
on Mon Nov 24 2008, "Tomas Puverle" <Tomas.Puverle-AT-morganstanley.com> wrote:
Aside from skirmishes over the meaning of life, I thought the opposite.
This isn't intended as a jibe, but what do you think is the outcome of the discussion so far?
It seems like we've agreed on nothing.
You didn't seem to take Thorsten's offer very seriously.
Nothing is changing.
"nothing has changed yet" != "nothing is changing"
I don't feel like we've achieved much.
I believe we've achieved some understanding about the problem and the specifics of the new and old designs.
My only hope is that at least people will be more mindful of changing things in the future. At least that would be some kind of result.
Yes it would. But I think we can reasonably hope to do better than that. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (3)
-
David Abrahams -
Neil Groves -
Tomas Puverle