Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 11:49:37

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> How long did they exist as parts of Spirit? Were they approved to be
> included as parts of Spirit and/or recommended/allowed to be used
> independently? 

Should adding new functionality or changing implementation details in an
accepted boost library cause a re-review? That's what I hear you saying
in the above. I know I'm stretching "implementation detail" a bit
regarding Spirit, but in general...

> Why would Spirit contain a duplicate for Lambda and how
> they can (or should they?) coexist gracefully in the user's code? Which
> one should be used by default?

Should one? Is it bad for boost to contain two libraries covering the
same domain? I always thought of boost as a "winnowing grounds" for
libraries. If we do have two lambda (or whatever) libraries, both can be
tested in the real world. Eventually, probably, one or the other will
retire, but who can currently say which?

> These questions may sound silly to you,
> but I recently happened to write an article about Boost libraries, and
> such questions took a lot of time to answer. I believe, every developer
> exploring Boost will stumble on such questions sooner or later.

Not silly, really. I just think that boost is a special place as
software libraries go, and doubling on functionality here is not as much
a crime, as it would be in some other libraries. IOW I don't think
either should be used "by default". People should choose the library
that best suits their needs.

 /Brian R. Riis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJXkWhk1tAOprY6QERAspZAKDhTkJYug0Fb+WTpzcpKhHj5se4cQCeJOdR
SUeZOcPnofN+MRynlEDC104=
=EGKr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----