From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-06 12:05:19
At 11:50 AM 9/6/2001, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>> See the attached for a first cut.
>
>It looks good, and it's certainly an improvement over the plain
alphabetic
>list (which still can be useful too). One thing that concerns me, though,
>is classification such libraries as 'tuple', 'function', 'functional' and
>'compose' into "Helpers" as opposite to "General use" category. For
>example, to me 'any' library doesn't seem to be in any way more "general
>purpose" than 'boost::function' or 'tuple', and I would prefer to see all
>of those in the same category.
I have similar concerns, but also worried that just lumping all of them
into "General use" would quickly render that category too large.
Is there a better way to separate the General and Helper entries into
categories?
--Beman
Incidentally, there is no law that says a library couldn't appear in more
than one category. Remember that the objective isn't the categories
themselves, but to help users locate libraries which might meet their need.