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
I think eventually the library may need to be splitted to keep a boost
"core" that's thin
"Sohail Somani" <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> This is something that could be part of boost.process which
>> is an SOC project
>> in the works now:
>> Julio and I have at least discussed that this could either be
>> part or an
>> extension of the core library -- see the bottom of:
>> If you really want to see this functionality it would be good
>> to say so.
> 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.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk