Re: [boost] libsigc++ inclusion (was Formal review request: Signals library)

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-28 13:46:51

At 01:30 AM 12/27/2001, Karl Nelson wrote:

 >...  Is it
 >the point of a standards orginization to simply hand down standards which
 >someone arbitarily feels is best or should it be adapted from those
 >items which are found in industry to already work well?  I am not saying
 >fresh code is not needed, but you seem to really be reinventing the 
wheel.
 >Considering most of the interface (signals method name, connection
 >concept) were taken from sigc++ why not adapt the whole thing rahter
 >than such peice meal.

While a library "found in industry to already work well" has an obvious 
head-start, other considerations are also important.

For instance, someone has to be willing to do the actual work.

For Boost, that means getting a submission together, requesting a formal 
review, and shepherding the submission through the process.

For the standards committee, that means (among other things) submitting a 
written proposal via a national body, and shepherding the proposal through 
the process.  For Boost libraries, some of the Boost members who are also 
members of the committee are helping other Boost members with that process.

At the time of the initial C++ standardization effort, several string 
library authors presented their work in magazine articles and on newsgroups 
as something that should be standardized.  But they never made actual 
proposals to the committee.  So their libraries were never even 
considered.  At least one of the later authors claimed to be outraged at 
this.

If you want SigC++ added to Boost (or the standard, for that matter), you 
have to do the work.  Don't be like the string library folks who put in 
lots of effort, but never actually submitted any proposals.

--Beman