On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
I haven't followed the discussion and I apologize if I'm repeating something, but in my mind if three is a useful library A, and if we could provide a layer (wrapping?) which makes library A work better with Boost, the only question should be how popular library A is, and how many of library A's users would benefit from an easier Boost integration.
That's perfectly true if the question is whether such a wrapper should be created, but...
Specifically, what platforms that library runs on is not important.
Portability is important for deciding whether to include such a wrapper in Boost. From the requirements: "A library's interface must portable.... If a portable implementation is not possible, non-portable constructions are acceptable /if reasonably easy to port to other environments/..." [emphasis mine]
In this context, the wrapper I was talking about would be the Boost library. The requirements simply state that that wrapper should be portable, that's fine. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode