Re: [boost] boost::directx?

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-08 19:51:28

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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 this context, the wrapper I was talking about would be the Boost
library. The requirements simply state that that wrapper should be
portable, that's fine.

Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode