Re: [boost] [Review] xpressive

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).

Paul

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
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]  www.hetp.u-net.com