From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 15:28:26
Dave Steffen wrote:
> Rene Rivera writes:
>> loufoque wrote:
>>> So we should put boost into the standard library because of the
>>> stupidity of some companies or team leaders ?
>> Some of those "companies" have no choice. For example a government
>> contractor must comply with regulatory restrictions, many of which
>> correspond to some form of international or US standards.
> < someone 'way in the back raises a hand >
> It can be much worse. When working on classified projects (at least
> here in the USA), _any_ software brought in from "outside" has to
> undergo rigorious inspection and screening; this can take weeks, or
> even months if one has to go through various other agencies,
> committees, etc.
> The process and requirements have nothing whatsoever to do with the
> contractor, and everything to do with government security
I don't see that having the interface for such software in a standard
would effect this problem. The implementation would have to be
screened in any case.
Of course if one is using a library which has already been screened
in a different or related project, presumably that code - if it hasn't been
changed - will be acceptable for the current one. But for that to
work one needs to have better portability than we now have.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk