From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-29 17:40:29
> This brings up a delicate point. It is actually exactly where I thought
> there's going to be much discussion; now, in light of the discussion that
> already took place, it seems like that is going to be a _very_ long debate
This is true. It will be a long debate, so you have to be mentally prepared.
> The delicate point is that I plan on submitting things from Loki that
> overlap with stuff that already is approved and used in boost. Take for
> example functors - I am going to basically propose a total replacement of
> boost's functors with an improved version of Loki's Functor (that I'm
> working on), and I will bring arguments on why I think Loki's version is
> superior. This is likely to annoy pretty much everybody: (1) the users of
> the current boost functors; (2) the creators of the boost functors, who
> obviously spent a great deal of time working on them; (3) the whole boost
> community, who spent time on reviewing and improving the functors. So I have
> no idea on how that is going to go.
I'm skeptical that Loki's Functor can displace all of the boost function
libraries (bind,compose, function, functional). And I believe it brings the
least benefit b/c Boost already has solutions in this area.
> Now that you brought smart pointers - my (and some boosters') belief is
> that, on the contrary, Loki's smart pointers are perhaps the most
> interesting addition to boost.
Sure, however, perhaps foolishly, I think that there is less issue here. The
Loki smart pointer is a super-set of the boost smart_ptr and should be able to
basically replace or augment the current implementation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk