From: Jake Voytko (jakevoytko_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-14 10:31:41
On 6/14/07, Martin Bonner <Martin.Bonner_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> <pulls face> Providing two interfaces because you couldn't decide on the
> right one doesn't sound right to me.
Me either. It would make maintenance that much harder. However, it *is* a
For both write/output and <</set, I suggest that you remember boost is
> not a democracy. Each library has its own dictator (in this case, you),
> and the only real power the rest of us have is to reject your library.
> I find it almost inconceivable that a useful library to generate SVG
> graphics would be rejected because an interface function is called
> "write" rather than "output". The main point is to concentrate on
> making the library actually useful.
Thanks for the advice. I know that I can't please all of the people all of
the time (after all, it's one of my father's favorite sayings!). But in
addition to making this library useful, I'd also like to see it used. If I
get enough of a demand for something, I'm not against reviewing the ideas.
I've gotten a lot of good suggestions from quite a few erudite individuals,
and these suggestions have all shaped the project for the better. I'm not
against reviewing a common concern.
(Except of course that you should obviously change from << to set.. :-)
We shall see what the future holds!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk