Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Carlos Rafael Giani (e0325834_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 05:47:51

Hi Christian,

> I have repeatedly stated my belief that it is futile, if not insane, to
> attempt to make a system that uses either DirectX or OpenGL.
> That is the reason that I explicitly suggested boost::directx, rather than
> boost::killmenow.

My apologies if you understood this as being targeted against you. I was
strictly commenting joel's remark. No offense.

>> In short, even then we don't even have something useful for boost.
> Perhaps. I only wished to raise the issue and provide some demo code. What
> happens after that is up to the boost community.

Yes, indeed. This is what this thread is about.

As for the actual thread topic, you have a flaw in your logic. Many
people use WinAPI. Should boost include a WinAPI library? Many people
use Qt for their C++ GUIs. Should boost include Qt support? Etc.

Your proposal, while intriguing, is very domain specific. No problem
there, which boost library isn't? However, the domain here is a library
tied to a few platforms (PC, XBox360) instead of language constructs
(lambda, phoenix, fusion), common tasks such as parsing (Xpressive,
Spirit, regex), common functionality (bind, any, signals/signals2,
At first glance, Boost.Python breaks this pattern. However, Python is a
freely available language, and Boost.Python concerns itself with the
*language* Python, not with a specific Python interpreter or similar.

I strongly suggest you do the same as Adobe did ( They
have their own open source libraries. Many of them are very useful. Out
of this codebase, GIL was added to Boost. Perhaps your library yields at
least a subset that can be added to Boost. But for now, "let it grow".


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