Pavel Chikulaev wrote:
"Edward Diener" <eddielee@tropicsoft.com> wrote in message news:d2oo3n$4oq$1@sea.gmane.org...
Now you may feel that this is still useful, and I have done exactly that, although not for .NET, in my own Regular Expression Component Library using Boost regex++, but I do not think you can ask any of the Boost programmers to do that for you. If you decide to take a Boost library and create a .NET implementation for it for your own use or that of others, no one will object. I asked it, because I would like to do it by myself and because even in managed C++ I still want to use boost libraries(and iostreams). I just wanted to know does anybody else need it?
The need may be minimal because once you target .NET you may be limiting yourself to a single OS and environment ( I am aware of Mono ). More importantly .NET already has a set of filesystem like classes, so you are competing against something that is already there. But if you feel it is worthwhile and useful for others, go for it ( that is what I did with my library ). Yu can even sell it if you like. There is nothing in Boost that limits you from using it in a commercial product just as long as you are not trying to sell a Boost implementation itself.
But I think it is wrong to ask Boost implementors to work with an implementation that is not standard C++. After all Boost is about the C++ standard and creating advanced implementations which follow that standard as much as possible. What about Posix and Windows implementation?
There is nothing about Posix or Windows API implementations that precludes the use of standard C++, although the windows.h header file makes it more difficult to use certain things, particularly macros, with conflict with it. The boost Filesystem library works in Linux/Unix and in Windows.