RE: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result

From: Brian Braatz (brianb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-07 10:06:37

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Paul A Bristow
> 
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> | Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Re: Typeof: Review result
> |
> | It is not something one slaps together just to get their
> | name in lights (to me at least). A boost library makes you go
> | "Wow". if it doesn't make you go "Wow" it doesn't belong in boost.
> 
[Paul A Bristow Writes:] 
> WOW! - What a elistist view!
> 
> Nothing WOW about STATIC_ASSERT (for example) - but not just useful
but
> invaluable.
> 
[Brian Braatz Writes:] 
1- I was stating how I PERSONALLY felt about the issue. 
2- The problem with thinking in the "wow" paradigm, is that is relative.
STATIC_ASSERT has a wow factor to it for many. For some it does not.

> IMO Boost library is about USEFULNESS and QUALITY.
> 

[Brian Braatz Writes:] 
Add "efficiency" and you just described where the "wow" comes from :) 

> Quality code that starts by peer review AND because it is well
exercised
> by
> lots of users on lots of different environments, and is amended often,
> so is likely to be as correct as can be and as portable as practical.
> 

[Brian Braatz Writes:] 
Yes

> And nobody gets their names in lights - just a bucket load of hassle
> manipulating their code for all the non-compliant compilers.
> 
> Paul

[Brian Braatz Writes:] 

HAHAHAH The underlying truth shows itself :).