Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-07 13:26:35

> Thanks for all your remarks. I didn't just barge in and think "oh hey, why
> didn't anyone else think of this". I knew that many people had thought of 
> it
> before, and wanted to do it before.
>
> Even so, it was worth re-raising. I knew from the lag between my orginal
> post and when it was visible on the list (hours!) that it was debated by 
> the
> monitors to even present the idea for fear of just introducing noise to 
> the
> list.

I don't believe so, we (the moderators that is) aren't hanging on every 
email waiting for the next post to moderate: in fact I approved your message 
as soon as I saw it first thing that morning :-)

> I don't want to add noise. I was and am honest in my suggestions. And I 
> will
> raise them again.

Well... suggesting a new library is never noise, even if it often proves 
more difficult to convert people to your point of view than you expect!

What I'm not sure about, is exactly what you're proposing here: we don't 
normally accept non-portable libraries (hence the um... intense discussion), 
and we don't normally open new namespaces either unless there's a concrete 
piece of code to put in there (i.e. something that's been reviewed and 
accepted - the namespace and other packaging issues are often things that 
need discussing in the review).   However.... I seem to recall once upon a 
time when Beman set up Boost's original "rules" that we were open for 
*examples* and/or proof of concept ideas that advance C++ programming in 
some way, we just seem to have moved away from that with our more recent 
focus on fully formed libraries.   So I guess in that context, something 
like "here's how Boost can improve your DirectX code", might be a useful 
addition somewhere, I'm just not sure where!  Anyhow, that's just me 
thinking aloud and definitely without a moderators hat on :-)

Regards, John.