From: Braden McDaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-08 10:34:56
On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 20:42:32 -0400, Eric Woodruff wrote:
> A boost as you describe it turns into a big pile of standardized
> convenience/code reuse instead of a cohesive framework that hides the
> irrelevant implementation details into a binary package.
And note that I did not describe Boost. I simply stated some perceived
flaws in your argument; perceptions which, I note, you've made no attempt
to address. I can find only unsubstantiated assertions in your posting.
> boost needs standardization and needs to be the ultimate definative
> framework. It would be a tragedy to introduce another duality of
What is your basis for supposing that "duality of functionality" will be
introduced? Where in Boost have you encountered problems with platform
parity, and how exactly would your proposal diminish their occurrence?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk