Subject: Re: [boost] boost::directx?
From: Andrew Sutton (andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 10:14:58
> The first step is getting DX into boost. There are other platforms and
> targets sure, but each would have to be taken on their merit.
It seems unlikely to me that the library you are proposing would be
considered for acceptance into the mainstream Boost distributions for the
reasons previously discussed. Being antagonistic to maintainers certainly
doesn't forward your cause, either.
This doesn't mean, however, that the idea should be abandoned. There are
some good examples of high-quality, domain-specific, Boost-like libraries
that exist outside of the Boost umbrella and stand on their own merit (e.g.,
SOCI, CGAL, etc). I would encourage you to develop the library to maturity
and then reevaluate whether or not submitting to Boost is a good fit for
I fully grok that taht there are other platfforms and targets. But if i
> can't get DX into boost, the others are toast.
> This will be read by some that boost::directx is a trojan. I do not mean
> this to be the case. boost::directx is proposed to be a space for
> best-practise for people using DirectX to make systems using C++.
A library doesn't need to be in Boost to demonstrate or encourage best
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk