From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-28 21:16:13
At 07:26 PM 11/28/2001, David Abrahams wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
>into a Loki vs MPL debate.
>> Me too, that's a bummer. I had expected I'd go through trouble once
>> start submitting Loki to boost, but really I hadn't expected that much
>> trouble and that early on :o).
>What do you mean by "trouble"? For the most part, we've been doing what
>normally do (only perhaps more so because many people are interested in
>same topics you are): when someone brings a library up for discussion, we
>pick it apart, discuss alternatives, contrast it with similar libraries,
>and explore the domain.
Yes, and even if all the discussion results in minimal change to the
proposed code, it often results in much improved documentation,
particularly rationale and FAQ's.
All that becomes important later in the library's life cycle, when it has
to be defended in less supportive environments like the C++ committee or
the general C++ community. The sort of intense review Dave describes above
means that the library ends up stronger, and is able to survive in
environments nowhere near as supportive as Boost.
Here at least the basic aim is to strengthen a proposed library. Elsewhere
the aim often seems less benign.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk