From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-08 10:05:45
On Monday, October 8, 2001, at 10:27 AM, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
> I'm glad others feel the same as I. Do I need to try and propose yet
> another defect on this subject or is there any progress occuring
> within the comittee on at least discussing this issue?
Good question, and I'm not sure I have the correct answers.
You've got the attention of the lwg now. I think a lot of lwg members
either actually participate or at least lurk here. However, typically
the only thing that gets attention during a meeting is stuff that is
actually on the issues list. So an official issue would ensure that
this subject gets meeting time. I did a quick scan, and I don't see
this issue currently in the issues list.
I'm also not sure what would be the best thrust of the issue:
A general gripe about the nature of what headers need to be included in
a conforming program.
Something specific to <string>/<stdexcept>
Either way I think there is a good chance that the lwg won't classify
this as a defect. However, the lwg has just recently become much more
receptive to work on a new C++ standard. So this issue could easily
fall into the "extensions" category, and gain momentum there.
The above represents the ramblings of just one lwg member. Please don't
mistake it for any kind of consensus in the committee. Others here
might have different and/or better advise on the best way to proceed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk