From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-13 09:32:49
On Apr 13, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Andy Little wrote:
> A major reason given
> by the committee AFAICS (in GUI case) was that the committee doesnt
> have enough
> time to deal with it.
This is not exactly correct. The committee does not have enough time
to *design* a GUI library, nor any other library. Besides, you
wouldn't want a library designed by committee, would you?
If someone steps up with a proposal for a GUI library, the committee
will review it.
> Yet there seems to be adequate time to discuss the
> addition of more complexities to the language itself.
These are different groups within the C++ committee. Libraries are
handled by the Library Working Group, language extensions are handled
by the Evolution Working Group. Discussing language extensions rarely
takes away time from the discussion of new/improved libraries, except
where language changes can have a large effect on how libraries are
written (e.g., concepts and move semantics).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk