5 Oct
2015
5 Oct
'15
1:10 a.m.
On 5/10/2015 13:15, Gavin Lambert wrote:
On 25/09/2015 04:22, David Sankel wrote:
What do you all think? Would it be appropriate and/or desirable to have a Boost.GSL library?
I think the operative questions here are:
1. Are Boost libraries likely to want to depend on GSL (eg. using owner<T> and other new types / fake keywords)?
2. If #1 occurs, which of the following would Boost prefer to do?
a) Include the "real" GSL as part of Boost.
b) Introduce an adapter library that provides macros/types that let Boost libraries conditionally compile with "real" GSL provided externally or without any GSL.
Or I suppose: c) Make Boost (or some libraries thereof) require externally provided GSL without including it in Boost or providing wrappers.