Re: Standardization of Boost libraries

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-08 16:35:34

on 3/8/02 10:27 AM, Paul Moore at paul.moore_at_[hidden] wrote:

> My concerns were mainly based on a general feeling that recent boost
> libraries have been prone to overgeneralisation, which has impacted on
> portability (to sub-standard C++ compilers). Witness the recent gcd library,
> which I ended up not being able to use within rational<>. In terms of the
> standard library, this is probably not an issue - if a vendor ships the
> standard library, it doesn't matter how it's implemented, as long as it
> works. But I was trying to capture the "feel" of the std::complex
> implementation - it's basically what any user would expect. I *like* the
> fact that a significant proportion of the library is "nothing special", just
> standardised implementations of the sort of boilerplate code people hate
> having to rewrite over and over.

What's wrong with the GCD library?  (I tend to write verbosely-spaced code,
so don't judge it on length alone.)

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com