Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-10 11:31:26

At 06:45 PM 5/10/00 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:

>> It seems to me that it just too confusing for users if boost has
>> alternate interfaces to the same underlying functionality, except
>> exceptional circumstances. Normally, boost should just pick one of
>> the alternates and stick with it.
>Yes, but what I was asking, in effect, was: Should I submit an
>template library that, well, is a direct competitor to the "lambda"
and the
>"functors" libraries already in the vault, both interface- and
>implementation- wise?
>Boost hasn't (formally) picked anything yet in the ET department.

I don't know what to say. When this sort of thing happens on the C++
committee, the people submitting the competing proposals get together
(by email or in person) and discuss the relative merits, often
off-line, often with participation by possibly neutral others.

This results sometimes in one of the proposals being withdrawn,
sometimes in proposals being combined, and sometimes the full library
working group has to get involved in choosing one over the other.
But that sort of decision is always made at a meeting, after
presentations by champions for each approach. I don't know how to
translate that to the boost situation.

Does anyone have any insights as to how other free software projects
resolve this sort of issue?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at