From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-03 08:04:46
David Sankel <camio_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Browsing the Boost.Python documentation, I've begun
> to wonder why they python library should be a part of
> It seems to me that the boost.python library is
> primarily in existence to extend python.
It's also for embedding Python in C++.
> Is python even a standardized language?
It's not an ANSI/ISO standard, if that's what you mean.
> It just seems to me that decisions made about the
> slews of networking libraries are not consistant with
> the python addition.
I don't understand; please clarify.
> Quoting from the website:
> One goal is to establish "existing practice" and
> provide reference implementations so that the Boost
> libraries are suitable for eventual standardization.
> It seems to me that boost.python belongs more in the
> python camp than in the std c++ camp.
> I'd love to be convinced otherwise,
I'm not going to try, but I will say that the question of whether
Boost.Python is appropriate for standardization came up several times
during the Boost.Python review. For some reason I seem to be unable to
locate the review commentary in our mail archives.
I can also say that if Boost.Python were not part of Boost, there
would be many practical difficulties with releases and updating, due
to its heavy reliance on metaprogramming techniques. Finally, there
has been a lot of talk recently about generalizing parts of
Boost.Python to provide bindings to other languages and even pure C++
metaclass facilities. I hope that some of these ideas will bear fruit
If Boost.Python were tied to Python that would probably not be
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk