From: Spencer Collyer (spencer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-22 14:22:35
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:13:51 -0600, Michael Goldshteyn wrote:
> "Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > "Korcan Hussein" wrote:
> >> FC++ being worked on (to be re-reviewed for boost in the not to
> >distant > future?)
> > FC++ was reviewed (cca year ago) with negative result.
> > I am not sure how much of work has been done on it afterwards.
> > /Pavel
> Do you or anyone else have any recollection on why it got a negative
> result to its review?
As well as the points Pavel makes, I seem to recall that a major strike
against the FC++ library was that it was very slow compared to doing the
equivalent thing with existing facilities.
-- <<< Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines >>> 7:21pm up 43 days 2:55, 16 users, load average: 1.40, 1.07, 0.74 Registered Linux User #232457 | LFS ID 11703
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk