From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-22 09:28:38
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bronek Kozicki
| Sent: 22 September 2005 10:43
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] xpressive
| Darren Cook <darren_at_[hidden]>:
| > So a new library should not be added just because it is clever, or
| > slightly better at solving some problem than the existing
| ways. In my
| > opinion, it has to be significantly better.
| I strongly disagree - my feeling is that one of motivations
| behind boost is to
| allow libraries to evolve and mature. This is best achieved
| when solutions and
| ideas are allowed to compete inside boost. Besides, large
| choice of libraries
| is also in iterest of boost users. I agree that we do have
| problems with
| testing, but limiting number of libraries is not the right solution.
I agree strongly with this.
And if there is a problem with the perceived 'bigness' of Boost,
I believe it is mainly in the 'install and build' side that needs improving.
For example, we still have not got Bjam V1 or V2 - including documentation -
to work well for most users, something that should surely be a priority
for the next release).
FWIW My review of xPressive has been to read the documentation,
and what everyone else reviewing more fully has said,
and I am strongly in favour of acceptance.
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
+44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden] www.hetp.u-net.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk