libsigc++ inclusion (was Formal review request: Signals library)

From: Glen Knowles (gknowles_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-26 19:45:58

I haven't been here very long, but:

> Could some one please explain to me why a large library which the author
> has offered to boost at several points continuously is ignored in favor
> of NIH (not-invented-here)?

There is much evidence to refute the existance of significant NIH. Not the
least of which is the fact that nothing was invented here, just about
everything has come in from somewhere else. As an example, one that has
caused the most recent noise is the work being done to get parts of Loki
into boost.

> Just for the record (in case no one wants to search the archive), SigC++
> 1.1 is solely copyrighted by myself.  It is free for all to use 
> under LGPL and I will automatically revert the license to public domain
> should it ever by included in the stl standard.

I could be mistaken but I believe that the simple fact that it is covered by
LGPL ensures that it will not be considered in upcoming versions of boost,
much less the standard. This is something you would have to change before
submitting the library for inclusion.

Based on the amount of discussion that the Signals library generated I am
surprised that you didn't get a lot of feedback and encouragement when/if
you offered to boostify it.

Regards,
Glen