The first step is getting DX into boost. There are other platforms and targets sure, but each would have to be taken on their merit.
It seems unlikely to me that the library you are proposing would be considered for acceptance into the mainstream Boost distributions for the reasons previously discussed. Being antagonistic to maintainers certainly doesn't forward your cause, either. This doesn't mean, however, that the idea should be abandoned. There are some good examples of high-quality, domain-specific, Boost-like libraries that exist outside of the Boost umbrella and stand on their own merit (e.g., SOCI, CGAL, etc). I would encourage you to develop the library to maturity and then reevaluate whether or not submitting to Boost is a good fit for you. I fully grok that taht there are other platfforms and targets. But if i
can't get DX into boost, the others are toast.
This will be read by some that boost::directx is a trojan. I do not mean for this to be the case. boost::directx is proposed to be a space for best-practise for people using DirectX to make systems using C++.
A library doesn't need to be in Boost to demonstrate or encourage best practice. Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com