Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 18:52:48

AMDG

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> I haven't followed the discussion and I apologize if I'm repeating
> something, but in my mind if three is a useful library A, and if we
> could provide a layer (wrapping?) which makes library A work better
> with Boost, the only question should be how popular library A is, and
> how many of library A's users would benefit from an easier Boost
> integration.
>   

That's perfectly true if the question is whether such a wrapper
should be created, but...

> Specifically, what platforms that library runs on is not important.
>   

Portability is important for deciding whether to include such a wrapper
in Boost.  From the requirements:
"A library's interface must portable.... If a portable implementation is
not possible, non-portable constructions are acceptable /if reasonably
easy to port to other environments/..." [emphasis mine]

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe