Subject: Re: [boost] New library? CallableTraits
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-07-01 04:38:29
On June 30, 2016 4:01:25 PM EDT, Edward Diener <eldiener_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 11:12 PM, Barrett Adair wrote:
> >>>>> 2. If so, does this belong in its own library, or should it be
> > incorporated
> >>>>> into Boost.TypeTraits or something similar?
> >> I agree that Boost.TypeTraits is the best place for these features.
> > a formal review be in order if CallableTraits is not going to be
> > as a standalone library?
> >> (snip)
> > Since I haven't received a response to my last post, I decided to go
> > and start moving the CallableTraits code into a Boost.TypeTraits
> fork today
> > .
> I think you should create Callable Traits as its own library rather
> try to integrate it with Type Traits. It will be easier that way to
> submit your library for review. If it is reviewed and accepted it is
> possible then to integrate it with Type Traits if that is the
> you or reviewers feel you should go. It is much easier to get a
> reviewed and accepted on its own than to have it be part of something
> else from the beginning. It should also be easier for you to design
> library separately rather than be part of something else.
How do you come to that conclusion? An addition to an existing library only requires the maintainer's approval, ideally with a mini-review in a case like this.
> But if you specify that your library on the whole needs C++14 on up in
> one place and C++11 on up in another place, it is just going to
> the end-user. That's why it is important to be specific. It is
> acceptable to have a Boost library support only specific levels of C++
> and/or specific compilers that support those levels. But it is very
> important to tell people what compiler and/or level of C++ support
> they will need to use your library.
-- Rob (Sent from my portable computation device.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk