Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:
From: Tom Browder (tom.browder_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-31 17:19:55

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Thomas Klimpel
<Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> So what would be the advantages of having Loki's SafeFormat library in boost?

As far as I know, nothing in boost relies on SafeFormat.  The
advantages of adding it to boost include: (1) active maintenance [Loki
maintenance interest is fading rapidly] and (2) boost (and thus
SafeFormat) is included and supported with many main GNU/Linux
distributions.

> A strength of Loki is that it is so well designed that it is possible to
> cherry pick libraries from it. > However, actually doing this seems to
> undermine the continued maintenance of the Loki library. Loki

Again, Loki maintenance seems to be fading.

I'm pretty sure that  Andrei would agree to allow SafeFormat to be
removed from Loki (with a pointer to Boost remaining on the Loki
site).

> But this would give the impression that the remaining Loki library
> is just what wasn't good enough for inclusion into boost.

That may be an impression, but that I don't believe should be a show
stopper.  Any remaining Loki maintainers could ensure an appropriate
message on the Loki site.

> The line "and naturally supports all user-defined types." makes me
> wonder how SafeFormat supports user-defined types.

I'm not sure that it does.  The main thing it does is provide a safe
version of the printf family.

>> Andrei's original comments regarding FPrintf's shortcomings are here:
>>
>>   https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4525195
>
> This thread doesn't seem to be about inclusion of SafeFormat into boost,

Actually, the thread started earlier.  The previous msg is where I
asked about adding SafeFormat to Boost:

  http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4524896

and the whole thread began here:

  http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4522502

> Does SafeFormat really contains functionality similar for scanf for parsing input?

I can't answer because I have no need for scanf (but I don't think
that was ever completed).

> Thank you for helping to maintain Loki.

You're very generous, Thomas--I just added a little bit for my own use
of SafeFormat.

> You should interpret my comments as the comments of a user of
> both Boost and Loki, who's main concern is to have good and
> well maintained c++ libraries that help him get his job done.

We certainly agree on that!

Regards,

-Tom