Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] [sort] Sort library review manager results
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-28 15:00:26

On November 28, 2014 6:31:33 AM EST, Steven Ross <spreadsort_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Thu Nov 27 2014 at 12:01:29 PM Edward Diener
><eldiener_at_[hidden]>
>wrote:
>
>> Do you mean a directory structure of:
>>
>> boost
>>    libs
>>      algorithm
>>        sort
>>          spreadsort
>>          ... possible other sorts
>>
>> ?
[snip]

>I think we want to keep it a separate library from algorithms for
>compatibility with modular boost.  boost/libs/spreadsort is fine with
>me.

On what do you base that conclusion?

>An alternative structure would be to have a boost/libs/sort/spreadsort
>structure, but in that case I'd be maintaining future sort
>contributions in
>addition to spreadsort to keep it one coherent library (which I'm
>willing to do). 

Thanks for offering to do that. However, I fail to understand how you think multiple sub-libraries under boost/libs/sort will be more tenable than the same under boost/libs/algorithm/sort.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)