Re: py_cpp

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
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. 
I just
> 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!  :)

       -Steve