Re: [boost] Dynamic Bitset Formal Review June 8-17

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.