From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-25 19:10:10
At 02:12 PM 3/25/2002, David A. Greene wrote:
>Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>> It is in fact a new programming language, because it is not
>> possible to use the same keywords or syntax, and it is not possible
>> to implement things exactly like you like, because of limitations
>> in C++.
>As I understand it, a not-explicitly-stated goal of the Boost
>process is to identify core language issues and provide concrete
>examples of how those issues cause real problems. With that in
>mind, I don't really think it's fair to penalize a library because
>it exposes weaknesses in the language. I think that's a positive
I agree with Dave.
Now that the C++ committee's enhancement working group is starting to look
at future core language changes, we can (and already have) start feeding
them issues that arise in library development.
But that's a long term proposition. We shouldn't hold off accepting useful
libraries because of potential future language changes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk