Re: [boost] Proposal to add smart_ptr to the boost library
"Caleb Epstein" <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<989aceac0601240847g8101b60x7fcecbd5fa1d7408@mail.gmail.com>...
On 1/24/06, David Maisonave <dmaisonave@commvault.com> wrote:
Since the current smart_ptr (policy_ptr) class at boost vault is on hold, I like to propose adding the following smart_ptr class to the boost library: http://code.axter.com/smart_ptr.h
You can propose your class(es) for review, but you will need to provide documentation and unit-tests if you expect your code to stand a snowball's chance of being accepted into Boost.
See http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm for some more info.
It does have unit testing code in the validation code that I previously posted. Since there's already example usage, and comments in the code, it wouldn't be that hard for me to pull it out, and put it into a formal document. I already have visited the submission link, and I just check it again, and I don't see where in the process the documentation should be developed. Moreover, I don't see any documentation for the current smart_ptr (policy_ptr) class that is in the boost vault. In any case, I expect to have the first draft of the documentation done shotly.
"David Maisonave" <dmaisonave@commvault.com> writes:
"Caleb Epstein" <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<989aceac0601240847g8101b60x7fcecbd5fa1d7408@mail.gmail.com>...
On 1/24/06, David Maisonave <dmaisonave@commvault.com> wrote:
Since the current smart_ptr (policy_ptr) class at boost vault is on hold, I like to propose adding the following smart_ptr class to the boost library: http://code.axter.com/smart_ptr.h
You can propose your class(es) for review, but you will need to provide documentation and unit-tests if you expect your code to stand a snowball's chance of being accepted into Boost.
See http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm for some more info.
It does have unit testing code in the validation code that I previously posted. Since there's already example usage, and comments in the code, it wouldn't be that hard for me to pull it out, and put it into a formal document.
I already have visited the submission link, and I just check it again, and I don't see where in the process the documentation should be developed.
That's not really part of the submission process. You don't need to have documentation in order to gauge interest, but fewer people will be interested if you don't have docs. You'd certainly better have docs before you request a formal review. You are currently at the second step of the process: http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm#interest Regards, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (2)
-
David Abrahams -
David Maisonave