christopher diggins wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com>
I think I've developed an adaquate specification; I'm in the process of modifying the current implementatin so that it satisfies the specification.
Great, I am really looking forward to it.
I just wanted to go on the record as saying I am now just as happy with hand-written interfaces as machine written, at least for the forseeable future.
Okay.
Jonathan
p.s. BIL is no longer an acronym, it's an ordinary word -- just like OLE was for a while. Or, maybe I should say it stands for "BIL Isn't Legit (yet)"
In light of recent (valid) concerns brought up by David, I would like to have the next version of the BIL outside of the Boost namespace and not in a folder named Boost. I hope this isn't too much to ask? This might in fact be a good practice for all new proposed and experimental libraries.
I hope this is not necessary: 1. It will make it harder for me to look at old revisions of files, since I am using CVS locally 2. It may hide potential naming conflicts 3. It will make the regression tests harder to run 4. It will mean I can no longer make the code available in the sandbox CVS, except perhaps as a zip. (I added the library to the sandbox a few feeks ago) I believe Dave was mostly concerned with people getting the wrong impression about the Boost submission process by observing casual conversions. People who are actually using the library will know it's unofficial because of all the disclaimers. I think the correct time to change the directory structure and namespaces would be if the library is reviewed and rejected. Jonathan