From: Chuck Allison (cda_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-12 23:32:14
> 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
> 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
> light of day had we followed this policy.
Well said, Dave.
On a related note, could someone please explain to me why everything in the
standard C++ library must be considered an STL component? It seems to me
that STL has upstaged C++. Should we remove complex? Streams weren't
invented by SGI either. Should they go as well? I just don't understand this
reasoning. Of course, I also didn't realize that SGI was the ultimate
authority on all things C++ either. Where's the memo on this? I was there in
1993-1994 when Alex gave the STL presentations. I seem to recall that J16
approved and accepted STL (I voted in favor), but didn't relinquish control
of anything to anyone. There is no post C++98 authoritative body other than
J16 itself. The next best thing is Boost itself - 2,000 strong without a
dictator (benevolent or otherwise). SGI just fell down a notch in my eyes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk