From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-23 09:29:34
>> Actually this discussion moved slightly beside the point. My original
>> was that wave should be treated as a tool (like bjam). If (once) we agree
>> that we could discuss in detail what should it means.
> But that's backwards! I certainly can't agree that it should be
> treated like a tool without understanding its implications.
No, it's not. I just propose to treat wave the same way we treat other tools
in boost. Later on we could decide if we need to revise this treatment (for
These are two independent decisions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk