From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 17:05:24
> > In Loki's case I expect enhanced portability as a big benefit.
> Okay. Your suggestion specifically was to slap "namespace boost" around Loki
> and get it to compile on more platforms, so I guess that's a given.
> Normally, the boost process impacts library submissions in many more
> positive ways than that, though. I don't think that it would be good to give
> up on those benefits.
I was just suggesting a course of action, perhaps with a little too much drama.
An open review, of course, will always improve a library, but we won't get there
if we scare Andrei off b/f he even uploads Loki....
> > I'm personally
> > much less interested in
> in what?
I wish I knew -- a thought lost in time ;-)
> > > 2. How would boost users have benefitted from our hosting of that code?
> > Singleton, Multimethods, Vistor, and Factories. Real tools for building
> > that Boost doesn't have now.
> These are already available to boost users at the MC++D site. I'm not
> suggesting that these facilities wouldn't add value to boost. Of course they
> would. But boost users don't need these things to be part of boost in order
> to use them.
Last I knew the only site for MC++D is the download page on the awl site. This
lacks mailing lists, support, historic context, CVS, etc. Boost adds much for
the user community here.
> Boost users benefit from libraries being hosted at in part because of the
> discussion and scrutiny that they receive when proposed/submitted.
In part. Online documentation, portability, standards compliance, etc. There
are many reasons.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk