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

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-28 18:25:09

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>

> On Thursday 27 December 2001 07:07 pm, you wrote:
> > Because I still do not believe that under the best of circumstances that
> > compilers will improve that much.  I have been coding SigC++ for over
> > 2 years and still have the same petty problems with most of the
> > compilers out there.  This compiler doesn't like void returns, that
> > one doesn't like traits for references, this one does but doesn't use
> > them unless it is the first Tueday of the third week in May.
>
> I understand the problems with portability, and it consumes more than half
of
> my library design time. It's obnoxious, but to compromise the quality of
an
> interface because of it? What will give compiler implementors a reason to
> implement the entire C++ language if we're all using only the features of
C
> with Classes? Look for the ideal interface, then mangle the implementation
to
> make it work. The only good excuse for a non-ideal interface is when the
> language does not allow it.

I just want to point this out because AFAIK it hasn't been said and it is
very important to the discussion.

*** Boost is not a standards body ***

Our mission differs from that of a standards body, and the criteria for
considering a library are different, too. Existing practice makes (or should
make) much more difference in a standards context. Boost is about library
design and establishing "best practices" in library design. This is not to
say that history, data, and established user bases are unimportant to us -
to the contrary: every time a library is proposed here someone asks the
author about existing practice, and how the designs compare. However,
proposing libraries for standardization is only part of what we do here, and
anyone is free to propose a library for standardization without going
through Boost.

-Dave