Re: [boost] Boost.GSL?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.GSL?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-24 17:02:43

On 24.09.2015 19:22, David Sankel wrote:
> As you may or may not know, Bjarne Stroustrup, Herb Sutter, and others have
> announced a new set of C++ guidelines[1] and an accompanying library[2]
> that supports them. For many folks, it would be difficult to incorporate a
> new library into their organizations, but there is a strong desire to make
> use of the guidelines.
>
> I floated the idea of including GSL in Boost as a distribution mechanism to
> Bjarne and he said he doesn't have any objection to the idea in principle,
> although he is hesitant to having to go through an extensive review process
> where some of these basic structures would change.
>
> What do you all think? Would it be appropriate and/or desirable to have a
> Boost.GSL library?

I didn't take a deep look into it but I'd like a clarification as to 
what is being proposed.

I can see there is a library of different components, some of which are 
probably useful (again, I didn't take a detailed look). Most of it looks 
like it could be proposed as an extension of Boost.Utility, but it could 
be separated into one or multiple libraries. In any case, I think this 
submission could be interesting. A review is absolutely necessary, and 
I'm actually surprised that Bjarne is hesitant to pursue a review - 
after all, the point of the review is to make the library better. I take 
it he simply doesn't have time for that (I hope that's the actual 
reason, not misbelief in the community). Please note that for the review 
to happen, the library components will have to be documented and tested.

The second part is the guidelines (i.e. the document with the coding 
rules). I think Boost is not the right place for it, and neither isocpp 
is. This is a too controversial document, whoever is writing it, so it 
should probably be in a book or something that clearly states that this 
is the author's personal opinion. Personally I disagree with some of the 
guidelines, so I would probably reject it during the review anyway.