From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 20:03:32
At 01:15 PM 1/24/2002, Kick Damien-DKICK1 wrote:
>> A few weeks ago, a posting by Beman Dawes to comp.lang.c++.moderated
>> caught my attention. The posting said that Boost.threads had been
>> submitted to the Committee for their upcoming C++ Standard Library
>> Technical Report, and that the initial response from the Committee
>> had been favorable.
>Do no members of the committee share Marc Briand's view? Do no
>members see Boost.threads, for example, as suffering from the lowest
>common denominator syndrome?
They haven't looked at Boost.Threads in enough detail to form that kind of
Historically, however, they have more often rejected a submission (or parts
of a submission) because it was viewed as bloated than because it didn't
have enough features. I can't even think of a submission that was seen as
not having enough features.
And when LWG members sit around the bar after a day of meetings, they are
more likely to lament features that got into the Standard Library that
features that were omitted.
Remember, the committee is composed not just of users, but also
implementors, teachers, authors, and others who have seen the cost of
excessive feature creep first-hand. Issues like safety given a lot of
weight. Thus a small, carefully chosen feature set has a better chance that
a larger library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk