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

Subject: Re: [boost] Stability: More on 3 level Boost libraries
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-27 07:38:06

On 26.03.2010 10:50, Daniel James wrote:
>>> I can't see why anyone would volunteer for these extra requirements.
>>
>> To gain more users. Especially in the production environment.
>> Also, this level of stability may be required for inclusion into the C++
>> standard.
>
> Your second point doesn't hold since several parts of boost have
> already made it into the standard.

And it what way does it cancel my statement? Perhaps, you mean libraries 
like Bind or Tuple? These are quite stable for ages.

> And I don't think it will result in more users. But even it does, it
> isn't enough of a motivation. Since a library can only be as stable as
> its dependencies, then the libraries that everyone depends on will
> need to sign up for this.  And I don't think their maintainers are
> looking for more users (especially Boost.Preprocessor).

I can't imagine a library author who is not willing his library to be 
used. That also includes Boost.Preprocessor. That makes me wonder why he 
wrote the library in the first place.