From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 20:34:00
On 5/9/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't quite agree. There are very few people who know boost.build (v2).
> Many less than people who understand other build systems. That's one
> of the reasons things are so fragile.
> Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these
> tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into
> which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere,
> to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can
> do better than the rest of the world".
I understand. But I believe boost is not just "C++ libraries". IMO,
what boost really do is improve C++. Through libraries, common use,
and etc. That's how we see that C++ needs concepts, or how C++ needs
decltype or auto. Anyway, I dont want Boost to start pursuing new
goals just because it can, but it can, and have already, gone a lot
farther than just C++ libraries.
> ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk