Subject: Re: [boost] About all these metaprogramming libraries
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-19 01:27:36
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Louis Dionne via Boost <
> However, Boost needs one such library, not four. I think we can't just do 4
> reviews and include all the libraries that pass in Boost; that would be a
> huge disservice to our users, who will be left with the burden of choosing.
> Heck, if we can't even make our mind, how can they?
These questions are important only under the assumption that the libraries
are interchangeable. I doubt that they are. More likely their authors have
made different design choices, probably even competing design choices.
You can say well, as long one library can do the job of another, we don't
need both. But what if one library is faster in one use case and 10 times
slower in another? What if one library is always slower but can be used in
cases when another library can not?
There are already precedents in Boost of different libraries with
overlapping domains and this is not a problem. Moreover, it is in the
spirit of C++ to allow foor multiple solutions to a single problem, and to
provide just the solution to obscure problems 99% of the C++ programmers
didn't know existed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk