Re: [boost] py_cpp

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-17 07:23:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Baxter" <paul_baxter_at_[hidden]>
> Paul Moore wrote:

> > I've been watching the py_cpp messages go past, and while I don't want
> to
> > sound like I'm being negative for the sake of this, I wonder if this
> is
> > 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?

For the record, I have never had a clear idea of whether py_cpp is
appropriate for Boost - as the first inter-language library, it certainly
goes into uncharted territory for us. I asked the question many months ago
when I posted the first versions of what I had done, but the group was
silent on the topic.

One of the reasons I thought it might be a good thing to include at boost is
that Python's standard library still covers a vast number of useful areas
that std + boost do not.

> 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'm not sure that a library's review should be considered premature just
because there is lots of room for expansion/improvement. In this case, one
of the points of the review would be to get a feeling for which of the new
features is most desired by potential users.

> 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
> concerned me.

Is the concern that rapid improvements to a single library might cost boost
some credibility?

> 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
> about.

In general I wouldn't expect discussion of py_cpp to dominate the boost list
the way it has during the review period, but maybe you're referring to
something even more fundamental?

> 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.

I'm not offended in the least, and am happy to leave that decision up to the
group at large. That said, I think it is important that if we decide not to
accept py_cpp, that we understand the criteria for making that decision, so
we can make them part of boost policy. So far, the remarks I've heard do not
clearly state what it is that would cause py_cpp to be deemed appropriate or
inappropriate for boost.

Regards,
Dave