Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-06 08:00:30

John Maddock wrote:

>>Before we start the formal review, I would like to focus
>>boost's attention to the configuration scripts enclosed with
>> does not use "boost/config.hpp", but has
>>an "autoconf"-based configuration system with a few pre-built
>>configurations (egcs, MSVC, BCC).<
>The essential problem here is that regex++ has historically had a life
>outside of boost (and will probably continue to do so), it wasn't written
>for boost, but is has been "boostified" to some extent. I am aware that
>there are still areas of overlap between regex++ and existing boost
>- so far I have replaced regex++ facilities wherever I happened to notice
>there was a one to one correspondence with boost, probably I have missed
>few, and I'm sure that there is more that can be done. I guess we need
>define a policy here, as this is the first time that a someone has
>submitted a large library, not specifically "written for" boost.

On one hand, it should not be a showstopper if boostification of an
existing library isn't 100% perfect.

On the other hand, having a separate "autoconf"-based configuration system
rather than relying on boost/config.hpp seems undesirable to me.

Part of the solution to this problem might be to get some help from other
boost members. I expect there are several willing to help. It should be
possible via CVS or otherwise for John to retain final control over
suggested changes.

Would that work for switching from "autoconf" to boost/config.hpp?


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