On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 20:21 +0000, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> Unless I'm failing to see the obvious I wouldn't have a problem with
> using boost in sal and friends, assuming we stick to the vast majority
> of boost that don't require linking against specific boost libs.
Sounds reasonable to me. I -believe- the intention (back in the day)
was to have a plain C implementation to avoid compiler / dependency
issues there: on the other hand, I no longer believe in a stand-alone
future for UNO separate from LibreOffice, so we should do whatever works
best for ourselves I think - ie. use boost where it makes sense (and in
a tasteful way (cough) ;-)
Does that mean we should use some of the boost system abstractions
instead of our own home-brewed ones where appropriate - perhaps ;-) - is
that what underlies the question ? clearly if they perform better it'd
be lovely - is there some low-hanging fruit here ? I was wondering if we
could inline & perhaps optimise out lots of atomic referencing
operations around the place :-)
Regards,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
