Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:

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.

Robert Ramey