From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-20 11:56:32
From: "Paul F. Dubois" <dubois_at_[hidden]>
> It's great to be cool. But not everyone is cool.
True, but I think you'll agree that most people named Dubois are pretty
> I, and perhaps others in
> the C++-Sig, have no idea what you are talking about. What ever boost is,
> I'm glad to hear you are in it.
www.boost.org has a pretty good description of itself:
"The Boost web site provides free, peer-reviewed, C++ libraries. The
emphasis is on portable libraries which work well with the C++ Standard
More detailed info is available at http://www.boost.org/more/faq.htm
Is anything still unclear?
> Sounds like a great product, though.
Thank you! I'm honored to hear that coming from you; I know CXX has been a
great contribution to the Python/C++ community.
> I am no longer on a project that uses C++ or I would try it.
What does this mean for the future of CXX? It has been suggested (and I
agree) that CXX has strengths that py_cpp does not, and could benefit from.
I'm not sure whether or not complete integration is worth the trouble, but
it sounds like a plausible idea to me.
> In re your comments on CXX on your site. My intention with CXX was not to
> what you are doing. It was to enable a person to write an extension
> in C++ rather than C. I figured others had the wrapping business covered.
> thought maybe CXX would provide an easier target language for those making
> wrappers, but I never explored that.
I realize that the goals of our two projects are not exactly the same, but
the purpose of that page is really to answer the many questions I received
of the form "how is your system different from XXX"? That said, I would be
more than happy to quote you in my comments. Is what you wrote above really
the best way I can represent CXX, or should I say something else?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk