"Paul A. Bristow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Although I an growing to like date_time, I have to agree that some > names are less than ideal. I found kday less than intuitive. > Documentation of the labyrinthine (with good reason) structure is > also weak (or even wrong?) > > It seems to me that these observations at this stage highlight a > weakness of the current review process. Until code gets Boost > acceptance status, too few are prepared to really use it in anger on > real projects, and only then do lots of 'issues' start to surface. > But by then, changes cause grief to existing users, so there is a > reluctance to 'improve' things like naming. > > Do we need a 'still may be subject to significant change' status to > distinguish from a 'pretty much tried and tested' status?
Maybe review managers should do an assessment of how much scrutiny has been applied, and solicit a closer inspection. I know I'd have found most of these had I participated in the date_time review. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
