Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.GSL?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-10-01 12:33:20

On 9/24/15 9:22 AM, David Sankel wrote:
> 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,

I don't think it's a good idea to add distribution of libraries we
haven't reviewed to boosts mission. We already have difficulty with the
tasks we already have taken on.

> although he is hesitant to having to go through an extensive review process
> where some of these basic structures would change.

And GSL doesn't need the Boost imprimatur to gain visibility or

> What do you all think? Would it be appropriate and/or desirable to have a
> Boost.GSL library?

If someone want's to submit their own implementation of GSL, I'm sure
that would be fine. But, as others have pointed out, there is no
specification, type requirements, etc for this library. So it's hard to
see how one could actually do that.

If someone want's to submit his own "safe" libraries, we already do that
and many have been submitted in the past. Take for example shared_ptr
which originally appeared in boost.

So I don't think the appearance of GSL has much to do with us other than
validating the idea that more high quality libraries are essential to
the evolution of C++ and higher quality programming - the core idea
behind Boost in the first place! We should see this as further
validation of the success and indispensability of Boost, the ideas it
promotes, and the vision of it's original founders and continuing

Robert Ramey.

> -- David Sankel
> [1]
> [2]
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at