Re: [boost] Boost.GSL?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.GSL?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-01 12:33:20

On 9/24/15 9:22 AM, David Sankel wrote:
> I floated the idea of including GSL in Boost as a distribution mechanism to
> Bjarne and he said he doesn't have any objection to the idea in principle,

I don't think it's a good idea to add distribution of libraries we 
haven't reviewed to boosts mission.  We already have difficulty with the 
tasks we already have taken on.

> although he is hesitant to having to go through an extensive review process
> where some of these basic structures would change.

And GSL doesn't need the Boost imprimatur to gain visibility or 
distribution.

> What do you all think? Would it be appropriate and/or desirable to have a
> Boost.GSL library?

If someone want's to submit their own implementation of GSL, I'm sure 
that would be fine.  But, as others have pointed out, there is no 
specification, type requirements, etc for this library.  So it's hard to 
see how one could actually do that.

If someone want's to submit his own "safe" libraries, we already do that 
and many have been submitted in the past.  Take for example shared_ptr 
which originally appeared in boost.

So I don't think the appearance of GSL has much to do with us other than 
validating the idea that more high quality libraries are essential to 
the evolution of C++ and higher quality programming - the core idea 
behind Boost in the first place!  We should see this as further 
validation of the success and indispensability of Boost, the ideas it 
promotes, and the vision of it's original founders and continuing 
collaborators.

Robert Ramey.

> -- David Sankel
>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md
> [2] https://github.com/Microsoft/GSL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>