Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem

Subject: Re: [boost] Another variant type (was: [peer review queue tardiness] [was Cleaning out the Boost review queue] Review Queue mem
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-02 21:00:54

On 2 Apr 2015 at 21:17, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira wrote:

> > I think Boost needs to very substantially increase the value add on
> > offer to library authors over what is on offer at present.
> >
> 
> The only troubles I got trying to write a Boost-like libraries is the
> excessive NIH syndrome. Tools like btool and quickdoc, which are a pain to
> use and are no better than the competitors. If these tools were designed
> without the assumption that you have a Boost tree lying around just to use
> them, the barrier would be lower.

It's looking like the upcoming crop of new Boost libraries are all 
not requiring Boost, so I think you're going to get what you want. 
Most are header only too.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ 
http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/