On 5/9/07, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
I don't quite agree. There are very few people who know boost.build (v2). Many less than people who understand other build systems. That's one of the reasons things are so fragile.
Also, I can't say it often enough: I'm not arguing against any of these tools. They certainly have merit. But boost.org itself has a scope into which these tools don't fall, so I'd prefer them to be developed elsewhere, to keep people focused on "C++ libraries", as opposed to "things we can do better than the rest of the world".
I understand. But I believe boost is not just "C++ libraries". IMO, what boost really do is improve C++. Through libraries, common use, and etc. That's how we see that C++ needs concepts, or how C++ needs decltype or auto. Anyway, I dont want Boost to start pursuing new goals just because it can, but it can, and have already, gone a lot farther than just C++ libraries.
Regards, Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Best regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida