Re: [boost] ANN: POCO - C++ Portable Components

From: Steven Burns (royalstream_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 10:28:49

I agree, boost should be an extension to the standard.
But if you ask me, there are already quite a few libraries that are probably 
too specific.
I think eventually the library may need to be splitted to keep a boost 
"core" that's thin

Steven

"Sohail Somani" <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1C1EBEF8DBACDC439D038EA051674EC735BD74_at_xbox.financialcad.com...
>> This is something that could be part of boost.process which
>> is an SOC project
>> in the works now:
>>
>> https://boost-consulting.com:8443/trac/soc/wiki/process
>>
>>
>> Julio and I have at least discussed that this could either be
>> part or an
>> extension of the core library -- see the bottom of:
>>
>> https://boost-consulting.com:8443/trac/soc/wiki/process/Design
>> Thoughts/Discussion
>>
>> If you really want to see this functionality it would be good
>> to say so.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Personally, I think boost should refrain from the bloat that is
> inevitable from "Hey this library does XYZ, we should have a boost
> library that does it".
>
> I'm happy with the direction boost is going in (if that counts for
> anything). I look to boost to solve data structure related problems for
> me where C++ lacks, less so for other things that a full library like
> POCO can provide.
>
> Sohail
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>