From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-28 12:04:10
Beman Dawes wrote:
> It is even better than that. The C++0x Standard is probably three to
> five years off. But the Library Technical Report is on a much faster
> schedule. IIRC, the technical work is supposed to be done by this time
> next year.
> While the TR is non-normative, meaning there is no requirement that a
> C++ compiler supply the additions, I expect most library suppliers to
> climb on board pretty fast. They have been very supportive of the TR,
> and all present in Santa Cruz voted in favor of the proposals.
> At the time that C++0x is finished, the normal process would be for
> the TR to be included as a required part of the standard library.
This very cool indeed! Congratulations again, and onto the next set of
Boost libraries! :)
> Note that there was some minor overlap between the Boost.Function and
> Boost.Tuples proposals. The overlap was resolved in Santa Cruz. There
> will be copies of the final proposals on the committee web site in a
> couple of weeks.
> > Since the following is a publicly available document on the Library
> > TR at the WG21 site, I guess it's ok to post a link to it
> > (http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1361.html).
> Yes. Since papers on that site are the actual committee documents,
> Boosters interested in standardization might want to read them directly
> rather than relying on second-hand reports.
Yes they seem very interesting. Say, shouldn't that link be on the
boost.org main page along with a news item that brings this piece of
good news to the general (ie non-mailing list) public? :)
> >It covers 15 proposals for the TR, the vast majority are Boost
> >and Boost.Function and Boost.Tuples are two of them.
> An update reflecting actions in Santa Cruz will be available soon.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk