Boost logo

Boost :

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.

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