From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-20 15:27:57
At 01:16 PM 8/6/2001, Greg Colvin wrote:
>The changes we will be considering soon are pure interface
>And by the way, I don't think shared_ptr will be ready for
>standardization in October, and was thinking that the October
>session should be a "heads up" to the committee of proposals
>that may be coming down the road. The overall structure of
>the Boost project should be presented at a high level, and
>a few of the more mature libraries presented in enough detail
>to give a good feeling for the nature and quality of our work.
Yes, that is what I had in mind also. People on the committee who haven't
been following the Boost work need to be given a chance to come up to
speed. No actual proposals voted on. Maybe ask for straw votes on
anything we need LWG guidance on.
When formal proposals are eventually made, I'm pushing for a two step
* Initial proposal to accept the library in principle. Rationale,
benefits, and similar analysis, but no TR formal wording. Depend heavily
on the existing Boost documentation for exposing technical details.
* Final proposal with the formal TR wording.
The point of doing it that way is that it's lots of work to write formal
wording, particularly if the existing docs didn't closely follow the
standard's approach. No one wants to go to that effort unless they know
that at least in principle the library will be accepted.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk