[boost] Intentions of Boost.TR1

Subject: [boost] Intentions of Boost.TR1
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-30 19:06:07

I just saw this post on comp.lang.c++.moderated.  I wonder if the
Boost.TR1 documentation shouldn't clarify its intended use or degree of
conformity.  I don't think TR1 conformity is something we have been
paying much attention to, is it?


attached mail follows:

Hi

I just read this

"DINKUMWARE LTD  is the last remaining commercial supplier of Standard
C++ libraries, (...)"

on http://www.dinkumware.com/competitors.aspx

{ mod note: the quoted paragraph continues "and has long been the only
commercial supplier of Standard C libraries." -mod }

If that was due to the fact there are free comparable implementations
of the Standard C++ library I could understand this. But taking TR1 as
a test case Dinkumware estimates conformance of free implementations
as 15% for Boost, and 12% for Gcc in a comparison to their 100%
(http://www.dinkumware.com/tr1_compare.aspx).

Isn't it scary there is only _one_ company in the world producing
conforming implementation of the Standard C++ library?

What does it tell about the Standard?
What does it tell about the C++ in general?

Piotr Dobrogost

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com