From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 16:47:41
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>> What is the point of having a library standard anyway?
>> I have always viewed the importance of a library standard as a means
>> of specifying that an implementation which supports the language must
>> provide the library also.
>> This automatically creates a common set of
>> functionality for all implementations of the language. I view that as a
>> good thing ...
> no disagreement there. My question is how to guarentee this. There
> are at least two options:
> a) tweak the library to fit the compiler and meet the standard
> b) all of the following:
> i) requiring a language conforming implementation for the library
> ii) provide a reference implementation of the library.
> My view is that the current situation tolerates and perhaps
> encourages the a) while creating a huge amount of work
> in creating the standards. I believe that this work would
> better be invested elsewhere. Like actually bringing the
> compiler(s) to conformance.
No one is against doing the work of bringing the compiler to
conformance, but providing a C++ standard library which works with the
compiler is part of that conformance also. Many C++ compilers use a 3rd
party C++ standard library, and there is nothing wrong with that. I
think that you want the C++ standard committee in b) ii) to provide a
reference implementation of the library for all compiler vendors to use.
Is that your argument ?
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