Date: 2001-10-27 17:19:46
> Boost's proposals for new standard library
> features for the TR faired well in general.
not being familiar with the process, i'm wondering whether
"proposal" here means "this particular thing in boost"
or "something providing the goals met for example
by this thing in boost".
if the latter, i can understand why the boost threads library
was brought up. if the former, i don't -- that library has
to my knowledge yet to appear in a boost release, and has not
completed the boost internal process, to the extent that
has been formalized.
on a related note, it seems the LWG has to choose not
only what is appropriate, but priorities as well, since
their bandwidth i'm sure is limited.
for example, might they not say they want to see a date
class soon, even though to my knowledge there is no
viable candidate floating around?
shouldn't hash_map and array get in there soon?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk