Re: [boost] Re: rebind<> bad; template template good

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-08 08:49:55

At 02:10 PM 10/3/2002, David B. Held wrote:

 >Indeed.  If only std::allocator<> could have been so fortunate...or were
 >member template classes available then?

While all the features of the language had been defined, there were no 
compilers available that correctly implemented many important features, 
particularly template related. Most available compilers didn't implement 
some important template features at all.

That meant certain features of the standard library were standardized 
without ever being implemented or tested. It also meant that none of those 
involved had actual experience using the features.

The committee understood this, and some argued that the core language 
should have been standardized first, and then the library standardized 
later. The committee took a deep breath and plunged ahead, feeling that 
having a standard library sooner rather than later was worth the inevitable 
oversights due to lack of experience.

--Beman