Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 13:27:35

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:35:02 -0400, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>

>At 01:12 PM 9/17/2002, Gennaro Prota wrote:
> >How can something that nobody has used yet
> >be existing practice?
>Welcome to the real world of standards work. It isn't always a straight
>Let me give you an example. When LWG first started to look at
>boost::regex, an LWG member commented that some aspects of the interface
>were "push" rather than the "pull" (iterator-based) interfaces common in
>the standard.
>So there are two existing practices, and they conflict somewhat.
>To be responsive, John Maddock's formal proposal for adding regex to the
>Standard Library TR proposes an interface that uses iterators more in
>keeping with the standard than the current Boost version. (John, appologies
>if I haven't got this quite right).
>Now someone might say that such a modified interface proposal is no longer
>existing practice. But the LWG takes a wider view, and expects some changes
>as an interface is readied for final submission to them.

But I think many people use boost also because there's the (not so)
implicit idea that they will have less to modify in their code
(compared to some home-rolled solution) when the components they need
will be standardized. What you describe above means that this
advantage is really nonexistent, no?

Also, I haven't understood Mr. Abrahams idea about a boost release
being "something available". I think we should not forget that when
boost releases there will certainly be a lot of people that will start
using the released code. If the goal is only to have the code
available for the committee why not creating e.g. a "committee
sandbox" instead of binding people with something released in a hurry
and, above all, not (expressly) for their use?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at