I understand, and I wish I could do this myself, but I do not feel qualified
at this point. I am just pointing out that this is going to become a problem
due to inconsistent versions of the same idiom making it into the boost via
sub-libraries. So if someone qualified wants to propose (X || Y ||
ScopeGuard) they should consider this as a factor. This is what I meant.
regards,
max

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave@[...].com]
>  Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:23 PM
>  To: boost@[...].org
>  Subject: [boost] Re: Latest ScopeGuard
>  
>  
>  Max Khesin <MKhesin@[...].com> writes:
>  
>  > This is funny in the light of Robert R.'s remark that you boostified
>  > his version. Anyway it seems like a high priority that the more
>  > experienced boost guys should get a basic version of this pushed
>  > through before we get 20 slightly different versions sneaking in via
>  > the libraries being incorporated into boost. Consensus may be more
>  > important than perfection at this stage.  max.
>  
>  We don't "get ____ pushed through", though.  Someone has to make a
>  library proposal.
>  
>  -- 
>  Dave Abrahams
>  Boost Consulting
>  http://www.boost-consulting.com
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Unsubscribe & other changes: 
>  http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>  
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the us
e of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
 error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and 
is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
 disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost