Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:
From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 21:54:26
Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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?
No and no.
> Is this the same as creating a new library Karma, or Qi or ?
> which formats data?
No. You are asking for a top level library. Karma/Qi are sub-
libraries still under Spirit.
> Well, given the names, I have no idea?
If you get to know beyond the name, you will.
> 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.
If you asking for a top-level library, then yes, it must be reviewed.
If, on the other hand, it is a part of your library (a component,
a sub-library), then I see no problem. Qi/Karma are all under Spirit.
They are not top level Boost libraries (so were Phoenix and Fusion,
before they were reviewed). They all live under the spirit namespace
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boostpro.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk