| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Bronek Kozicki | Sent: 22 September 2005 10:43 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] xpressive | | Darren Cook <darren@dcook.org>: | > So a new library should not be added just because it is clever, or | > slightly better at solving some problem than the existing | ways. In my | > opinion, it has to be significantly better. | | I strongly disagree - my feeling is that one of motivations | behind boost is to | allow libraries to evolve and mature. This is best achieved | when solutions and | ideas are allowed to compete inside boost. Besides, large | choice of libraries | is also in iterest of boost users. I agree that we do have | problems with | testing, but limiting number of libraries is not the right solution. I agree strongly with this. And if there is a problem with the perceived 'bigness' of Boost, I believe it is mainly in the 'install and build' side that needs improving. For example, we still have not got Bjam V1 or V2 - including documentation - to work well for most users, something that should surely be a priority for the next release). Paul FWIW My review of xPressive has been to read the documentation, and what everyone else reviewing more fully has said, and I am strongly in favour of acceptance. Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com www.hetp.u-net.com