Re: [epochs] Proposal for an epoch-based organization of Boost libraries

From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-23 16:15:05

On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 06:25, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Next, I disagree with the idea that a library could be "not allowed to
> progress". Why block further improvements and extensions? Take
> Boost.Atomic or Boost.FileSystem, for example. These libraries are not
> equivalent to the standard counterparts, and offer extensions that are
> useful in practice and cannot be efficiently implemented "on top" of the
> standard components. What would be the point of a Boost.Atomic v2 if it
> had to reimplement Boost.Atomic? We are spreading our time thin as it is
> already.
>

The progression could be signified by another 'insertion mode' : increases
begin(*X*) and executes end(*X*) = begin (*X*) +1.

The epoch proposal is nice, thumbs up.

degski
-- 
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey