From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-12 22:48:23
From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos_at_[hidden]>
> STL is a great achievement for humankind. If STL were to fork into
various competing pseudo-normative factions, it would be a loss. Boost and
SGI (and STLport) must keep all post-C++98 evolutions of STL in sync so
that we continue to have one lineage of STL.
I usually hate to be so blunt, but this is pure nuttiness. The idea that
all container designs in the world must be coordinated through a single
authority runs counter to the design of STL itself. Were we also
transgressing when we approved the iterator adaptor library? Must Alexander
Stepanov give his stamp-of-approval to each new algorithm design? I am
quite sure, in fact, that many valuable libraries would never have seen the
light of day had we followed this policy.
> The question which comes to mind is:
> Is the Boost community attempting to wrest control of the post-C++98
evolution of STL away from SGI STL?
Yes, at the meeting in Curacao a few of us got together in a dark room with
smuggled cigars from nearby Cuba and some very good margaritas to plot the
overthrow of the Stepanov hegemony! We have a plan, and the surreptitious
propagation of dyn_bitset to all the hard drives of the world is only the
first step. Be afraid. Be. VERY. afraid.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk