Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 21:24:34
David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Now you want to mix in another facility? At least I know (Or think
>>> I know) what spirit was intended to be used for. Now I'm not so
>>> sure. If this is a new facitity - wouldn't Boost custom/rules
>>> require that it be subjected a new review?
>> Where is this custom/rules and when did this it start to apply?
> There are no such rules. There's nothing wrong with extending the
> functionality of a library. Obviously, tacking the functionality of
> the filesystem library onto Boost.Python wouldn't make sense, but I
> think parsing and generation may be a bit more related than that ;-)
OK - here is my example.
The serialization library includes and depends upon another component
which is logically separate: This is extended_typeinfo. It extends
the standard typeinfo in order permit one to use a portable string
as a universal identifier. So, given this, one can access the static
extended typeinfo record, And given this one can request the
construction of object of the corresponding type. This is effectively
a (mostly) portable C++ system similiar to COM / CORBA and
is used and tested as part of the serialization library.
Now suppose I decide - this is really a new library whose functionality
I would like to see included in boost. Can I just promote this
to that status without a review of some sort? How about
BOOST_STATIC_WARNING? Can I promote this as well?
Is this the same as creating a new library Karma, or Qi or ?
which formats data? Well, given the names, I have no idea?
But the question remains - should a whole new facility different
than what exists just be added? How would the author of
a previously rejected log library feel if someone else just gets
his alternative accepted without any kind of review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk