-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrey Semashev wrote:
How long did they exist as parts of Spirit? Were they approved to be included as parts of Spirit and/or recommended/allowed to be used independently?
Should adding new functionality or changing implementation details in an accepted boost library cause a re-review? That's what I hear you saying in the above. I know I'm stretching "implementation detail" a bit regarding Spirit, but in general...
Why would Spirit contain a duplicate for Lambda and how they can (or should they?) coexist gracefully in the user's code? Which one should be used by default?
Should one? Is it bad for boost to contain two libraries covering the same domain? I always thought of boost as a "winnowing grounds" for libraries. If we do have two lambda (or whatever) libraries, both can be tested in the real world. Eventually, probably, one or the other will retire, but who can currently say which?
These questions may sound silly to you, but I recently happened to write an article about Boost libraries, and such questions took a lot of time to answer. I believe, every developer exploring Boost will stumble on such questions sooner or later.
Not silly, really. I just think that boost is a special place as software libraries go, and doubling on functionality here is not as much a crime, as it would be in some other libraries. IOW I don't think either should be used "by default". People should choose the library that best suits their needs. /Brian R. Riis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJXkWhk1tAOprY6QERAspZAKDhTkJYug0Fb+WTpzcpKhHj5se4cQCeJOdR SUeZOcPnofN+MRynlEDC104= =EGKr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----