On 5/7/13 4:42 PM, Richard wrote:

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

boost@lists.boost.org spake the secret code thusly:

...

My name is Olexandr Popilovsky and I'm a student of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. I made a proposal for JSON parsing library and I would like to know that can I be accepted for this project and if yes, what I should to do to increase my chances (demo or smt.). thanks. waiting for your answer =)

ISTR that there are already a couple floating around; I know at least one example had been posted to the spirit mailing list by Colin Rundel: http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/domain-specific-languages-...

There's also one on CodeProject.

Given that a parser or emitter can be written in about ~100 lines using Spirit, I'm not sure how you could spend a whole summer on it, but I'm not in charge of things...

If an easy to use and efficient json parser came into boost as a 100 line library I'd consider that a summer well spent. Can you provide a link to your proposal?

On 5/7/2013 6:55 PM, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

On 05/07/2013 06:07 PM, Michael Marcin wrote:

...

If an easy to use and efficient json parser came into boost as a 100 line library I'd consider that a summer well spent.

The core of that work would be writing a submission, waiting for feedback, replying to reviews, etc., which has high latency and isn't really a beginner's job. I therefore strongly disagree that "get library <X> accepted into boost" would be a reasonable GSoC project.

I don't think I ever suggested that. I was being mostly tongue-in-cheek anyways. If you look back on this list a short while back there was a discussion of json library interface that I seriously doubt would take 100 lines of code. Even if it did I would strongly disagree with using a lines of code metric to judge the value of a library.

On 5/8/13 8:21 PM, Richard wrote:

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

boost@lists.boost.org spake the secret code thusly:

...

Even if it did I would strongly disagree with using a lines of code metric to judge the value of a library.

Isn't the scope of effort a valid point of discussion when considering a *summer* of code proposal, however?

Fair enough, although I still wouldn't agree that LOC = scope of effort. Anyways... Still hoping for a link to said proposal so that the scope of the effort and other things can be discussed.