From: Paul Baxter (paul_baxter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-17 05:07:56
> I've been watching the py_cpp messages go past, and while I don't want
> sound like I'm being negative for the sake of this, I wonder if this
> really appropriate for Boost?
> Comments? I'm surprised that no-one else has said this - am I missing
> something fundamental from not having actually looked at py_cpp?
I had thought much the same, but since it is already in for review I
thought the point was moot.
I also wonder whether it is too soon to review it (even if right for
boost) since previous messages have alluded to further changes in the
near future which sound a little more than problem fixing.
I thought the idea was to include a library and then over time establish
through usage what interfaces of code might require modification.
It seems like once in Boost this library might still undergo significant
changes on a weekly basis. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but previous
comments and added features during the review period have slightly
I have no doubt that this is a valuable and worthwhile library of itself
and I am gaining valuable insight into python and to some extent
language 'wrappers' in general, but it isn't what I expected Boost to be
Having said all that, I'm chiefly on the sidelines and people like Dave
are an excellent driving force behind Boost. I certainly don't want Dave
to take these comments personally and do appreciate what looks like a
very useful library for both the python and C++ communities.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk