On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 00:57, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
>> Hi Igor,
>>
>> I dont see this neither as "destructive" nor as "critics", especially since:
>>
>> - you initially started to add things to NB that were more or less API
>> wrappers instead
On 14 August 2013 00:57, Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> I dont see this neither as "destructive" nor as "critics", especially since:
>
> - you initially started to add things to NB that were more or less API
> wrappers instead of real Core NB functionality ;)
>
> - I see the same risk f
Hi Igor,
I dont see this neither as "destructive" nor as "critics", especially since:
- you initially started to add things to NB that were more or less API
wrappers instead of real Core NB functionality ;)
- I see the same risk for overloading NB and wanted to start the same
discussion
Hi, Torsten, all
i greatly appreciate your help and contribution, so don't take my
critics as destructive , please :)
The main reason for NativeBoost-Win32 package existence is to contain
minimal necessary platform-dependent things,
which would allow to support NativeBoost functionality.
But you
