RE: Standardization of Boost libraries

From: Moore, Paul (paul.moore_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-07 06:16:53

From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> The following Boost libraries are already on the committee's 
> proposal list:
> 
> 1) Header <cstdint>.  (Tabled pending more comprehensive 
>    proposal from Bill Plauger.)
> 2) Type Traits.
> 3) Regular Expressions.
> 4) Smart Pointers.
> 5) Random Numbers.
> 6) Rational Numbers.
> 7) Threads.

This raises a question. As the author of the rational number library, I
didn't particularly do anything, or get involved, regarding the inclusion of
the library in this list. Don't get me wrong - I don't have a particular
issue with this, inasmuch as I don't see that there's anything much I can
contribute that others aren't able to handle better on my behalf. But I
don't recall any particular feedback on the library - certainly nothing
direct to me (I may have missed something in the list, as traffic these days
is far too high for me to get through everything). Does this imply that
there was no comment? Or that the committee accepted the library as it
stands with wholehearted enthusiasm :-)? Or simply that other things took
precedence, and they'll get to it in time?

I do have some fairly strong views on the issue of keeping the library
simple, for example. If the committee feels that some form of baroque
template/specialisation/policy/traits mechanism is appropriate (to allow
user-level tuning of overflow behaviour vs efficiency, for example) do I
have any voice (beyond that of any random C++ user) to say "heck, no, that's
not what I intended"?

Feeling slightly unsure of the process,
Paul.