From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-06 09:39:24
>> See the attached for a first cut.
>> A final version would include a little table-of-contents at the
>> and might also still include the purely alphabetic list in a separate
>> Comments? Does this address enough of the concerns to make it
>> worth doing?
At 05:50 PM 9/5/2001, Greg Chicares wrote:
>Nice. Much easier for people who aren't already familiar
>with the individual libraries. Given this, I see no need
>for the flat alphabetically-sorted list.
See John Maddock's comment. I'm going to keep it, at least for now.
>The heading "Beta Libraries" begs the question "should I
>rely on these or not?" A sentence or two right after the
>header could clarify exactly what "beta" means here. I'd
>try drafting something, but I'm not sure what it means.
These are going away. They were libraries provided by Dietmar Kühl in the
early days of Boost so we would have something to show. I just had an
email earlier in the week from Dietmar saying he is working on dir_it, and
will soon submit it for formal review.
At 06:50 AM 9/6/2001, John Maddock wrote:
>I've been meaning to suggest something similar, I like the way this
>but I would move utility down into the implementation helpers category
>>A final version would include a little table-of-contents at the
>>and might also still include the purely alphabetic list in a separate
>also yes please.
>>Comments? Does this address enough of the concerns to make it worth
At 08:37 AM 9/6/2001, Philip Nash wrote:
>Yes, very nice. Simple but effective - always a good sign :-)
>I don't think you need much else, at least not right now. Of course as
>number of libraries grows still bigger we may need to review things
>down the line.
Thanks for the suggestions and feedback. I'll go ahead and update the CVS
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk