From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-06 11:13:22
> Lambda and Expression
> Assuming there really is a lot of overlap, I don't think boost should
> supply both. Furthermore, it seems unfair to the authors to ask that
> they continue to develop and support both libraries when the final
> intent is to reject one.
My view on the matter is: Why not emulate the C++ Standard? The important
thing, for me, is that boost should approve an _interface_, not a particular
implementation. Different implementors are then free to provide
implementations that conform to this common interface. Some implementations
can provide more functionality than others (like SGI and Dinkumware do with
their C++ standard library implementations) - with the cost being, to get to
our case in point, limited portability.
In expression.html I have defined a baseline expression library interface
that can be built upon; expression.hpp is a proof of concept that this
interface is portably implementable, so to speak.
I don't think that the expression and the lambda libraries "compete" with
each other. They have quite different goals and audiences; the important
point is to let the user choose between them with a simple recompilation,
again, this is the case with the different STL implementations available.
(Of course, if the user chooses to exploit the LL extensions that are not
part of the hypothetical boost-approved interface, his/her code would not be
portable to expression.hpp or some other implementation; this is for the
user to decide.)
> B) The authors agree to disagree, and produce a description of the
> technical merits of each library. This gets posted to the mailing
> list, and the members decide via discussion, and a vote if necessary,
> which library to support.
But we don't disagree! Not on the important points, at least. :) Why should
the boost members choose between functionality and portability? This is for
the library user to decide.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk