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

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