Re: [boost] FC++ Formal review half way over today (ends 2/23)

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 15:20:59

At 06:32 PM 2/18/2004, Darren Cook wrote:
 >Also it seems the more
 >libraries in boost the longer it takes to get a regression-passing 
release
 >out,

That, together with the download size, are issues Boost will have to solve 
in order to grow. And we will solve those issues. We shouldn't start 
rejecting otherwise useful libraries because of them.

 > so adding it just because it is clever and well-written is not a good
 >enough reason in my opinion.

Agreed, but if "useful" is added, and of course the other Boost 
qualifications are met, then "clever and well-written" look pretty good.

(That's a general comment - I haven't looked at FC++ so have no opinion as 
to its usefulness.)

--Beman