Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 02:58:40

On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:51 AM, vicente.botet wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Bergman" <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]>
>> I still believe in this idea of creating a core layer, where tools that are useful in any (sub) discipline should be put. I.e., not the "stable"/"unstable" division, and especially - as someone pointed out - since that division might cause a bit of emotions on this list...
> 
> Please, note that this is a vouluntering level. each library author decides on which level its library could be. 

I missed that. That makes more sense than my tacit assumption that we (or a sub set of us) would mark them as more or less stable.

Thinking about it a bit more, I would probably prefer a core set, called 'core' for lack of imagination, with a 'general' outshoot, directed at problem solving in any domain, and two other ones, 'sci' and 'other', directed towards specific domains. Yes, 'other' would not be huge...

/David