On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Frédéric Bron <frederic.b...@m4x.org> writes: > > >> Change them so that they will fail using anything but C++11? That > >> sounds like it would not buy us anything but trouble at the current > >> point of time. > > > > OK, I forget that. > > I see that boost is not used. Is it deliberate? These are c++03 > > libraries and most of them have been the source of the new standard. > > "source of standard" means that they are liable to change particularly > in the course of becoming part of a standard.
They are very stable, getting a library in boost is not for the faint of heart. > > They are pretty well supported by distributions and work on windows, > > mac, linux. > > They are also humongous, which means a quite larger amount of work for > GUB. > What do you mean with humongous? Boost is large because it has a lot of stuff. Most of it is very stable and well documented. Interdependencies are minimal. Not using boost in any new reasonable sized C++ development project is a mistake, I've seen it happen. As to using them in lilypond I can't say what the effort/payoff would be. Also we have some phd's working here. I wouldn't overestimate the quality of their code. i
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
