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
>> Do you mean a directory structure of:
>> ... possible other sorts
>I think we want to keep it a separate library from algorithms for
>compatibility with modular boost. boost/libs/spreadsort is fine with
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
>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.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk