From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-05 13:31:25
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:26:52 -0700, "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]>
>>> Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
>>>> Is there an interest for having GIL be a boost library?
>>> I took a tiny look at the documentation and I'm curious
>>> as to why you want to make it a boost library. It's already
>>> part of a prestigious high visibility group. That is, what
>>> benefit would be had by adding it to boost that it doesn't
>>> already have? Would this added benefit be worth the
>>> extra work?
>> I hope "making it part of a prestigious group" isn't the rationale for
>> any of the boost inclusion proposals; oddly enough, a few days ago I
>> was discussing with a friend who also is a boost member, and we
>> identified this as a possible cause for the lack of maintenance that
>> some boost libraries are experiencing; if you see inclusion as a sort
>> of "award" then once you get the library accepted you have no more
>> "goals" to pursue and likely lose interest in your creature.
> OK - but I'm still curious: "What is the motivation to take
> on the extra work of making it part of boost?"
The authors can speak for themselves, but I can think of a few.
* Boost is standards track
* The review process is educational and usually improves libraries
* More eyes on the code/docs improves libraries
* Exposure to more users
I welcome a Boost library contribution from Adobe programmers.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com