Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Gevorg Voskanyan (v_gevorg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-07 10:02:05

Christian Schladetsch wrote:
> Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
> >
> >
> > The idea to have a proper C++ interface for DirectX sounds a good one
> > indeed, but does it have to be in boost to be widely useful for C++ folks
> > out there?
> No, it doesn't.
> But if it didn't have a boost:: prefix, it wouldn't have the cross-company
> oomf that is needed to make it a worthwhile intellectual goal.

I can understand that.
> The point of boost:: is to be a quasi-standard. I recognise that. That is
> why I am here, arguing for a DirectX namespace within boost, rather than
> elsewhere making Yet Antother DirectX Wrapper.

Are the other wrappers good enough from C++ (or boost, for that matter) point of view? If not, then it might be worthy to make an improvement in that area. That was my point. YMMV

> I have as much interest in wrapping DirectX as I have in arguing its merits
> against OpenGL.
> Even so, there are things you need to do, like vertex declarations, that are
> required. These can be helped with mpl. There are other things that boost
> can give DX users as well, and these should be shown to people.

In the form of examples in mpl, perhaps?

> That is my point. That is only my point. I know it's not "pure boost", but
> meh.

I guess you'll have a hard time convincing the other boost guys to have a top-level boost library that represents a wrapper of DirectX API, including myself, for the reasons already outlined. Sorry.

> Christian.

Best Regards,


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at