Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Add Loki Library's SafeFormat to Boost:
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-01 21:24:34
David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Now you want to mix in another facility? At least I know (Or think
>>> I know) what spirit was intended to be used for. Now I'm not so
>>> sure. If this is a new facitity - wouldn't Boost custom/rules
>>> require that it be subjected a new review?
>>
>> Where is this custom/rules and when did this it start to apply?
>
> There are no such rules. There's nothing wrong with extending the
> functionality of a library. Obviously, tacking the functionality of
> the filesystem library onto Boost.Python wouldn't make sense, but I
> think parsing and generation may be a bit more related than that ;-)
OK - here is my example.
The serialization library includes and depends upon another component
which is logically separate: This is extended_typeinfo. It extends
the standard typeinfo in order permit one to use a portable string
as a universal identifier. So, given this, one can access the static
extended typeinfo record, And given this one can request the
construction of object of the corresponding type. This is effectively
a (mostly) portable C++ system similiar to COM / CORBA and
is used and tested as part of the serialization library.
Now suppose I decide - this is really a new library whose functionality
I would like to see included in boost. Can I just promote this
to that status without a review of some sort? How about
BOOST_STATIC_WARNING? Can I promote this as well?
Is this the same as creating a new library Karma, or Qi or ?
which formats data? Well, given the names, I have no idea?
But the question remains - should a whole new facility different
than what exists just be added? How would the author of
a previously rejected log library feel if someone else just gets
his alternative accepted without any kind of review.
Robert Ramey