Subject: Re: [boost] Library metadata
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-24 07:55:13
On 24 February 2014 02:55, Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Robert Kawulak
> <robert.kawulak_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Just an idea: it seems like this approach is not too flexible given that there
>> are numerous standards/TRs/TSs coming now and in the future that possibly
>> include Boost libraries. Instead of adding a new field for each one of them,
>> maybe it would be better to have one "std" field with a list specifying in which
>> standard/TR/TS a library is included/proposed for?
> Something flexible, like a list, would be good. In Boost.Smart_Ptr, we
> have class templates like shared_ptr and function templates like
> make_shared that are part of C++11, but the Boost implementations are
> now improved and proposed for the next standard (N3920 in TS1, and
> N3939 in TS2).
This is what I was referring to when I said that the fields could do
with an overhaul. A list should be fine, especially if we use json.
I'm not sure how useful the existing fields are, the reality is often
more complicated than a simple data structure can handle, and I don't
think the existing filters on the library list are very useful.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk