From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 21:26:07
Jeff Garland wrote:
>>From a larger view, I'm really excited to see companies like Adobe and
> Google contributing C++ libraries into the community.
I second that. Even though Adobe is a member of the BSA and Google
isn't as squeaky clean as they like to present themselves, kudos to
both for their OSS initiatives.
> But we probably need ask if we should be turning around and attempting
> to boostify this code? ...2 reasons I can see for boostification are
> things that people want to standardize, and things that people want for
> other boost libs...
And I second this question as well. While code analysis tools are
definitely useful, they don't appear to take the form of a library,
par se (or perhaps I didn't look closely enough). And it seems
even less likely that such a tool would become part of C++. It
almost seems like asking to Boostify the GNU profiler or gdb. While
those are fine tools, they do just fine on their own without being
a part of Boost. BJam is a Boost tool, but it isn't a Boost library.
Perhaps we could sanction Google's offerings as "Blessed Boost tools",
but leave it at that?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk