We are getting closer to the crux of all this...
Good questions. Since I put myself on the line here and started this controversial thread, let me see if I can come up with some examples from my own experience. Like Emil said there may not be any real actionable items here. However, contrary to what Johanthon says, I do feel that the views I have expressed represent a sufficiently large number of developers and that they are correctly expressed on this forum. On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:05 PM, David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
On Mar 23, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Jonathan Franklin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:35 PM, David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> wrote:
What changes would we need to make to Boost in order to stay relevant (to that C/C++ mixed reality)? Would it require us to provide C wrappers for all our libraries?
My hunch is that the C wrappers are really only useful for exporting boost functionality to other languages. IME, it's usually the lowest level pieces that are written in C (or asm), and get aggregated into a C++ compilation unit.
I would be curious to know if there are current use cases for importing boost into C compilation units. Anyone?
We are getting closer to the crux of all this...
Tom has to explain if he wants Boost to:
1. still provide C++ interfaces, and thus only usable from C++ compilation units, but make those interfaces - or perhaps wrappers of existing interfaces - a bit less modern, to accommodate the lower C++ skill levels of developers in that C/C++ mix (that he talks about); or
2. provide C interfaces so separate compilation units can link with C units.
Which is it?
/David _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost