From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-28 14:34:26
At 10:19 PM 10/27/01 +0000, mda_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> 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".
Committee members are free to make either type of proposals. Of the eight
so far, all were of the first flavor.
>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.
Boost.threads has passed formal review and is in the latest release. Plus
Bill Kempf was available to present it to the LWG in person.
>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.
Yes, that will be a factor. The more complete a proposal is, the less
committee time it takes, so that helps too.
>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?
Jeff Garland has a very interesting time and date library close to ready
for submission to Boost. He presented in at OOPSLA in Tampa two weeks ago,
and it generated a lot of interest.
>shouldn't hash_map and array get in there soon?
Matt Austern has already proposed hash tables. His proposal was well
received. Many more Boost libraries will be submitted. The seven already
submitted were simply trial balloons to set the stage for additional
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk