From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-09 09:33:06
Phil Richards wrote:
>Andy Little wrote:
> > Frankly I have got the message long ago that my class is not good enough
> > for boost and never will be. There is always some thing that can be
> > found that it doesnt do. As Paul Bristow pointed out any review of my
> > lib is a foregone conclusion AFAIK.
>That may or may not be the case - the way I view these discussions is to
>try and get something in boost that does the job I need. I don't actually
>care very much whether it is written by Matthias, you, me, or somebody
>else :-) However, unless approaches are tried and publicised there never
>will be a library that does this job in boost - if what you have done
>works for you, then at least it is worth it for you - but it is also worth
>it to make other people *think* about the possibilities.
This is why I think it would be best to not have one unit/dimension/quantity
library submitted to boost, but two. That way, if a user wants a certain
feature, they can choose one library, but if they need a facility not found
in that library, they can use the other. Thus, the two libraries would meet
most of the users needs.
Otherwise, we'll end up with the situation where a units library will never
get added to boost.
There is the problem of mixing code that uses both libraries, but having
mediating code that facilitates conversion/mixed usage that can be included
if necessary would solve this.
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk