Date: 2000-10-17 10:17:21
--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Moore, Paul" <paul.moore_at_u...> wrote:
> I repeat, even though I haven't looked into it in any detail (I
have no need
> of it myself) I think that py_cpp is a useful and valuable library.
> question whether it fits with what Boost is aiming to provide.
I have also not looked at py_cpp in detail. However, here's my 2
pennies: I think that py_cpp would be a welcome addition to Boost.
The purpose of Boost is to provide free libraries, and "[t]he
emphasis is on portable libraries which work well with the C++
Standard Library" (Boost web page). In fact, on one point in the
FAQ, it states that libraries don't even have to do useful work (!).
While it is possible that *some* of the Boost libraries may migrate
to the Standard in the future (see FAQ), that is not the only purpose
for Boost, IMO.
Unless a library has disqualifying elements (incompatible license,
incomplete documentation, conflicts with the STL, etc.), it should be
acceptable for inclusion. py_cpp goes beyond this by providing a
very _useful_ library.
Some of Boost may become Standard, but I do not consider this a
requirement for submission.
Again, this is all IMO -- as I see it, so feel free to take it or
leave it! :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk