I suggested another division a year (was it?) ago, where I tried to enumerate all libraries while putting them in "core", "math" and "other" categories, as a side effect of trying to prove (or show?) that Boost is mostly about cross-domain programming *and* one specific sector, math (or "scientific programming"), and how strange that particular outshoot seemed to me, and that it could scare some developers away. I still believe in this idea of creating a core layer, where tools that are useful in any (sub) discipline should be put. I.e., not the "stable"/"unstable" division, and especially - as someone pointed out - since that division might cause a bit of emotions on this list... /David On Mar 25, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Andrey Semashev wrote:
On 03/26/2010 12:06 AM, Daniel James wrote:
On 23 March 2010 07:36, vicente.botet<vicente.botet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
1st level: stable Libraries belonging to this level must be very stable, any modification on the public interface must be reviewed. The goal been that changes in these libraries don't break user code, even if they will need to recompile. Libraries can pretent to be in this level if the library use only libraries at this level, has not introduced breaking changes for a given amount of time and of course if the author wants to be constrained to have a review for changes on the public interface and to correct quicky the possible tickets.
I can't see why anyone would volunteer for these extra requirements.
To gain more users. Especially in the production environment. Also, this level of stability may be required for inclusion into the C++ standard. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost