From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-07 19:01:33
At 04:13 PM 5/7/00 -0400, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> * Is portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or
>> operating system.
>An important role of a library project like boost, which hopes to
>to the next C++ standard library, is to provide unifying interfaces
>operating system capabilities which may not be portably accessible
>standard C++. I would like it if the definition of "portable" were
>to make it clear that we are not going to reject a library just
>uses non-portable constructs, as long as the library is relatively
Agreed. Hum. Maybe this:
* Has a portable interface not restricted to a particular compiler or
operating system. Has a portable implementation if possible,
otherwise reasonably easy to port to other environments.
* Is portable and not restricted to a particular compiler or
operating system. An exception will be made for implementations
requiring non-portable constructs, but interfaces must be portable.
I am not particularly happy with either wording; maybe words will
clarify in the morning.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk