RE: [boost] Re: Re: set class

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-30 12:46:28

I agree.

But, I think a lot of people (maybe not in this list) sometimes keeps
starring at the C++ language a bit too much, instead of widening the
views a bit, to help us come up with good, solid abstractions, that just
"happen" to be implemented as C++ constructs in the Boost case.

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of spamjunk_at_[hidden]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:38 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: Re: set class

> Well, actually they should. You do not become a very successful 
> problem solver in this field if your only toolbox are the terms and 
> concepts found in The International C++ Standard ;-)
> 

I think he was being
facetious.
pop-server.stny.rr.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost