Re: [boost] Boost libraries after C++0x acceptance

From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 14:34:31

Peter Dimov wrote:

> Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
>> The library standard doesn't "work".  It can't.  It's not code.  The
>> standard doesn't include an implemenation.  And once we
>> have a reference implementation which can be compiled on a
>> language conformant compiler, what is gained from the work
>> required to add it to the standard?
> 
> Wider audience, multiple competing implementations, availability. You can
> depend on the standard library being available for use even if for
> administrative/legal/whatever reasons no third party code is allowed on a
> project.

Right, but standardization has disadvantages.  It's set in stone in the
sense that changes in future standards necessarily have backwards
compatibility as an overriding concern.  With add-on libraries, things can
evolve in a much more reasonable manner - if someone is really tied to old
behavior they can use an older version of boost.

Consider the fiasco with std::vector<bool>.  If it had been a boost library,
it would have been fixed years ago!

Cheers,
Ian McCulloch