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

Subject: Re: [boost] [spirit] Library naming and sub-libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-02 12:41:39

Brian Ravnsgaard Riis wrote:
> 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...

No, I'm not saying that every change in the library implementation 
should be reviewed. But in case of Karma we have a major change in the 
Spirit feature set, and the new functionality is not related to parsing 
(the domain, in which Spirit was once proposed and reviewed). Such 
changes, IMO, should be reviewed, because they are equivalent to a new 
library submission.

>> 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?

That is a good point if taken from the Boost point of view. As for 
users, such duplication really complicates their lives. A user has to 
learn both libraries, chose what he likes more and then get caught by 
surprise because his fellow co-worker have chosen the other one.