RE: [boost] Re: Latest ScopeGuard
This is funny in the light of Robert R.'s remark that you boostified his version. Anyway it seems like a high priority that the more experienced boost guys should get a basic version of this pushed through before we get 20 slightly different versions sneaking in via the libraries being incorporated into boost. Consensus may be more important than perfection at this stage. max. -----Original Message----- From: Pavel Vozenilek [mailto:pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:02 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: Latest ScopeGuard "Max Khesin" <MKhesin@liquidnet.com> wrote:
I recall there have been sevral attempts at a boostified version of Andrei A. ScopeGuard. I want to start using this functionality and was wondering a) if there is any consensus about best/most boost-consistent implementation b) if there is there is a version in the library approval pipeline (or some definite plans for including this functionality in boost) thanks,
Multi index container library includes ScopeGuard (almost verbatim from Andrei) until some boost-wide solution appears. /Pavel _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Max Khesin <MKhesin@liquidnet.com> writes:
This is funny in the light of Robert R.'s remark that you boostified his version. Anyway it seems like a high priority that the more experienced boost guys should get a basic version of this pushed through before we get 20 slightly different versions sneaking in via the libraries being incorporated into boost. Consensus may be more important than perfection at this stage. max.
We don't "get ____ pushed through", though. Someone has to make a library proposal. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Anyway it seems like a high priority that the more experienced boost guys should get a basic version of this pushed through before we get 20 slightly different versions sneaking in via the libraries being incorporated into boost.
We don't "get ____ pushed through", though. Someone has to make a library proposal.
Its IMO problem for small utilities - they do not qualify as libraries and there's no reliable mechanism to get them reviewed and possibly included in Boost. Its easier for library author to add his own version in. /Pavel
On Sat, 15 May 2004 08:45:31 +0200, Pavel Vozenilek wrote
Its IMO problem for small utilities - they do not qualify as libraries and there's no reliable mechanism to get them reviewed and possibly included in Boost.
Don't agree. That's what fasttrack reviews are for: http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Fast-Track enable_if was reviewed using this process.
Its easier for library author to add his own version in.
Very true, especially if it is an implementation detail. Dave's point is someone has to step up and volunteer to do the documentation work, etc. Like it or not, it won't happen without a volunteer... Jeff
"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek@hotmail.com> writes:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Anyway it seems like a high priority that the more experienced boost guys should get a basic version of this pushed through before we get 20 slightly different versions sneaking in via the libraries being incorporated into boost.
We don't "get ____ pushed through", though. Someone has to make a library proposal.
Its IMO problem for small utilities - they do not qualify as libraries
Why do you say that?
and there's no reliable mechanism to get them reviewed and possibly included in Boost. Its easier for library author to add his own version in.
What about the "fast track review process?" -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
participants (4)
-
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Max Khesin -
Pavel Vozenilek