John Maddock-3 wrote

...

The current comment system is (I believe) well suited to those C++ programmers which do not use the boost dev list.

True, but it doesn't immediately raise a discussion - a message posted here gets seen by quite a few people, hopefully some of whom will be motivated to respond.

Damn - I just can't win here!

One thing I like about comments posted on Gibhub is that they're generated as emails direct to the repro owner,

The incubator implements this. Even more, users can select which libraries they want to follow automatically.

who can then respond via email rather than by the web interface. But I realise that may be hard to achieve for the incubator - in an ideal world all comments would be reflected here, and replies here would be copied to the incubator. Then you keep everyone happy!

Ahhh - keeping everyone happy - the holy grail. Actually this whole issue of managing these types of discussions is a lot more complex than meets the eye. I love seeing the whole indented list as on Nabble. I used to use Google Groups but for some reason it wouldn't let me make a public post. Nabble has worked well for me - but I'm not crazy about posting. Then there is a whole other aspect. a) Boost (I believe) was conceived as a way to support C++ with expanded libraries which would eventually enter the standard. b) It has largely fulfilled that purpose. Making the standard a lot bigger will make it every more difficult for vendors to supply a conforming implementation. So I don't think the standard library can grow a lot more. c) But C++ still needs a lot of help. It needs a lot more libraries most of which are too special purpose to be suitable for inclusion in the standard. And the number of these libraries is large - on the order of 500. This has to be the goal of Boost 2.0 d) This list can't do this job 1) 500 libraries would drown this list. 2) the discussions on the list are extremely useful and should be preserved in an easily accessible way. 3) There needs a way to pay for this development - boost has no way to do this. 4) This needs a lot more library writers. i) But most programmers don't know how to prepare a boost quality library: code, tests, documentation, etc. ii) Most library writer need some hope of compensation to justify the time spent. iii) All libraries need testers, critique, feedback, etc. Boost can only do that for libraries in review - and we can't review the candidates we already have. And we don't have a mechanism other than this list for dealing with this outside of the review. In a nutshell, the developer's list can't scale the way I think it has to. The Boost Library Incubator (www.blincubator.com) is prototype of a system designed to address all of the above points. Without making any commitment to any major changes, please post your comment in the incubator. I'll then have at least one good thread to use as an example, test, for the commenting mechanism. I'm only asking that we try this out for this one library - safe numerics. Turns out that this is a great example. It's simple enough to understand by everyone without spending a lot of of time. And it raises non-trivial issues worthy of discussion. It may even provoke submission of a competing solution. This could bode well for the future of Boost as I see it. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/library-incubator-Ease-commenting-Was-saf... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

2014-11-19 18:27 GMT+01:00 John Maddock :

The current comment system is (I believe) well suited to those C++

...

...

...

programmers which do not use the boost dev list.

True, but it doesn't immediately raise a discussion - a message posted here gets seen by quite a few people, hopefully some of whom will be motivated to respond.

Damn - I just can't win here!

Well that goes without saying ;)

Without making any commitment to any major changes, please post your

...

comment in the incubator. I'll then have at least one good thread to use as an example, test, for the commenting mechanism. I'm only asking that we try this out for this one library - safe numerics. Turns out that this is a great example. It's simple enough to understand by everyone without spending a lot of of time. And it raises non-trivial issues worthy of discussion. It may even provoke submission of a competing solution. This could bode well for the future of Boost as I see it.

I've just replied to the comments on safe-numerics, I note:

* As already said, I found the lack of a preview an issue.

Now, I can see button "Preview", but when I hit it, nothing happens.

2014-11-20 16:43 GMT+01:00 Robert Ramey :

Andrzej Krzemienski wrote

...

Now, I can see button "Preview", but when I hit it, nothing happens.

Hmmm - works for me. Note that nothing happens unless there is actually text in the box being edited.

:)

Try again and let me know if there's still a problem.

I tried it in two browsers. And it doesn't show me a preview. Sometimes I see message "Preview error" below the button. But after pushing Preview again, sometimes even this disappears.

2014-11-22 1:48 GMT+01:00 Robert Ramey :

maybe you could try one more time. I tweaked the css so it's easier to see and I checked it on the two browsers that I have available - Safari and Foxfire. Seems to work as advertised.

It is still the same: nothing on Firefox and "Preview error" on Internet Explorer. I will try it on other machine later. Perhaps it is something else on the computer. Anyone else, but me and Robert, can you see the preview?