From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-23 10:37:49
"Marcin Kalicinski" <kalita_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> That's not clear to me at all. There's no inherent good in avoiding
>> dependencies among Boost libraries. It's a judgement call, based on
>> many factors, including the author's personal preference. You have
>> every right to make that call yourself, but if you're trying to
>> somehow *justify* your decision, IMO so far you haven't said anything
>> that demonstrates it to be the best one.
> The reason why ptree does not use multi index is because implementation
> existed long before I considered submitting to boost, probably before even I
> knew of multi index existence. It was working well. Later, when I was
> improving it during pre-review process, I seriously considered using
> multi-index. But I decided it is not worth throwing everything out.
That's perfectly reasonable, but (through no fault of yours) it misses
the point I was trying to make. I guess I should have said, "...that
demonstrates it to be the best implementation."
All I'm saying is that the extent to which a Boost library
implementation should leverage other Boost libraries is not a question
that can always be decided based on following simple guidelines, and
that if this library is accepted, it's worth revisiting your decision.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk