Subject: Re: [boost] Extending Boost.Python with NumPy support
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-03 08:13:59
On October 2, 2016 6:20:27 PM EDT, Stefan Seefeld <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2016 5:55 AM, "Rob Stewart" <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On September 30, 2016 11:55:59 AM EDT, Stefan Seefeld
> > >
> > > I wonder whether any
> > > of this would require a formal submission as a new Boost library,
> > > whether it can just be done under the Boost.Python umbrella ? I
> > > this is somewhat of a gray area, so I'd like to clarify whether
> > > are concrete rules for what changes / additions require a formal
> > > review process.
> > The maintainer gets to decide:
> > "You are free to change your library in any way you wish, and you
> encouraged to actively make improvements. However, peer review is an
> important part of the Boost process and as such you are also
> encouraged to
> get feedback from the boost community before making substantial
> changes to
> the interface of an accepted library."
> > (From http://www.boost.org/community/reviews.html#Maintainer)
> Right, I know that text (being the Boost.Python maintainer) :-)
> I'm fully confident concerning the new code's quality. What makes me
> (and triggered my mail) is that the change in its current form will
> * a new library (boost_numpy)
How is a new library part of Boost.Python? It seems a review is needed for that.
> * a new top-level header (boost/numpy.hpp)
> * a new top-level namespace (boost::numpy)
Those are part of the first item as I see them.
-- 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