Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 01:01:33
on Thu Jan 01 2009, "Robert Ramey" <ramey-AT-rrsd.com> 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?
You can promote them to "exposed and supported features/sub-libraries of
Boost.Serialization" but not to top-level Boost libraries.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk