Re: Potentially include xproc library in boost?

From: Samuel Venable (samuelvenable_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-08-08 11:10:14

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, being a part of boost process. Though he wanted me to share what everyone thought about it. I'm fine with however it gets added or doesn't. Any route is a step forward for me. Even if it gets rejected, I can look into publishing it to package managers myself.

________________________________
From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 7:01 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden] <boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Gavin Lambert <boost_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [boost] Potentially include xproc library in boost?

On 6/08/2022 20:35, Klemens Morgenstern wrote:
> I am not sure if the lack of responses to your email indicates little
> interest in this library however. I seem to remember one review rejecting
> boost.process because it did not have those features, leading me to
> conclude that there is some interest. It would be worth finding out how
> much though.

Perhaps then it may be useful to approach the maintainer of
Boost.Process about the possibility of integrating the functionality
into that?

While they are somewhat different responsibilities, they do share some
common themes.  And while I'm not sure if it's actually easier to
integrate a large feature into an existing library vs. introducing a
separate library, it is at least an alternative hill that could be climbed.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost