Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-08 16:35:34

on 3/8/02 10:27 AM, Paul Moore at paul.moore_at_[hidden] wrote:

> My concerns were mainly based on a general feeling that recent boost
> libraries have been prone to overgeneralisation, which has impacted on
> portability (to sub-standard C++ compilers). Witness the recent gcd library,
> which I ended up not being able to use within rational<>. In terms of the
> standard library, this is probably not an issue - if a vendor ships the
> standard library, it doesn't matter how it's implemented, as long as it
> works. But I was trying to capture the "feel" of the std::complex
> implementation - it's basically what any user would expect. I *like* the
> fact that a significant proportion of the library is "nothing special", just
> standardised implementations of the sort of boilerplate code people hate
> having to rewrite over and over.

What's wrong with the GCD library? (I tend to write verbosely-spaced code,
so don't judge it on length alone.)

Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at