Boost logo

Boost :

From: Lois Goldthwaite (loisg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-30 08:09:10

Here's my vote in favor -- I, for one, would be very interested.


wb_at_[hidden] wrote:

> <jsiek_at_[hidden]> wrote on Tue Aug 22 13:06:14 2000:
> <snip>
> | What we really need is a common data
> | base of code snippets that we can all contribute to. A number of C++
> | libraries have collections of these code snippets that get run during
> | configure (STLport, Blitz, MTL, GGCL, etc.), though there is no
> | process in place for sharing this important resource.
> <snip>
> I am the maintainer of a package we named "ISOcxx" and which we term
> the "portability package." It is, indeed, a collection of smallish
> programs that are designed to probe a C++ environment and identify
> areas of noncompliance ("defects") with the standard. Some of these
> programs were adapted from those in some of the other packages named
> above.
> Further, to the extent possible, the package provides "compliance code"
> intended to cure or at least ameliorate any defects discovered. At a
> minimum, the package produces, as a result of its installation, a
> header file intended to be #include'd in client code. This header file
> identifies, via preprocessor symbols analogous to those used in other
> packages, the status of each defect probed.
> Part of what distinguishes this package from those in STLport, CLHEP,
> Boost?, etc., is that defects, if any, are discovered dynamically while
> installing the package. In contrast, to the best of my knowledge,
> other packages hard-wire their knowledge of defects based on the
> name/version/etc. of the compilation environment.
> What interest might Boost have in looking over such a package for
> purposes such as those articulated by J. Siek above?
> - WEB

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