Subject: Re: [boost] [review][beast] Review of Beast starts today : July 1 - July 10
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-05 22:01:34
On 7/5/2017 12:26 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 7/5/17 8:24 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> On 7/5/2017 12:25 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost
>>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> $ cd libs/smart_ptr/test
>>> Beast is not designed to build in-tree since it is not yet part of Boost
>> Still the ideal of reviewing a library usually means that the library
>> can be cloned beneath the Boost libs sub-directory and just "work",
>> whether the library is part of Boost or not.
> Hmmm - I'm not sure where that idea comes from. It's certainly not in
> the official requirements for a boost review.
> And there is a bigger problem here. When one puts his library "out
> there" the hope is that people will use it and he will get feed back
> from users, bug fixes etc. But to make the library easy to use within
> boost is to make it hard to use outside of boost. A library should "just
> work" whether or not the user has boost installed or not. or whether he
> is running as a subdirectory of boost or not. Or whether he uses b2 or
You are saying that a library that is supposed to be reviewed for
inclusion in Boost is supposed to somehow work outside of Boost ? I do
not think so and can't even begin to understand that sort of logic.
> This is a continuing problem in making boost easier to use for users and
> easier to start using. We need to make changes to address this.
> Robert Ramey
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk