> >For the same reasons I am also not worried if it cannot be
> >demonstrated, at this moment, that FC++ is the best way to solve any
> >particular C++ problem. I am confident that it will be useful in many
> >ways, but even if it should ultimately turn out that FC++ is never the
> >best tool, I think accepting FC++ into boost -- with the exploration
> >of new programming techniques and the interaction between programmers
> >with different backgrounds which it will bring about -- would still be
> >worthwhile.

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>  Here we probably disagree. I see boost as a collection of libraries that
>  intent to be used in practice. Ultimately some of them may join C++
>  standard. Introduction of solution for no problems does not seems to fit
>  this. Note: I do not say that there is no problem domain, I just say that
>  it's imperative to figure it out first, instead of telling C++ community:
>  "Ok. Here is the library. If you find any use for it let us know"

I agree (with Gennadiy). Boost, in my mind, is code that could one day be 
part of the standard, and for that I think you need it to be solving 
real-world problems. (which isn't to say that FC++ cannot be useful, just 
that it currently isn't showing any motivating examples with benchmarks to 
show how the code is quicker or safer or has shorter source code or easier 
to understand than the current standard practice).

Darren

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost