From: Philip Nash (philip.nash_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-14 18:18:10
Beman Dawes said:
> It strikes me that the Boost libraries to be proposed to the C++
> for the Library Technical Report will have an easier time of it
> if they are
> introduced to the committee well before hand.
> Comments? Anyone like to try to put together a preliminary list of
This might seem too obvious to mention, but lets keep in mind this "mission
statement" from the FAQ:
"To the extent a library becomes "existing practice", the likelihood
increases that someone will propose it for future standardization.
Submitting a library to Boost.org is one way to establish existing
Which libraries have become "existing practice" in the widest sense?
An obvious choice by this standard (which think every one will agree on) is
the smart_ptr library.
Someone else mentioned type_traits. I've not used it extensively enough to
comment with any authority, but it seems to me that this one may not be so
clear cut. Sure some of the features of the type_traits library are there to
address core language issues (like reference to reference), which should be
addressed _as_ core language issues (and obviously the references issue is
I would personally like to see the binders library in there, but I don't
know how mature or established it is...?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk