RE: [boost] Re: C++ committee Library TR progress in Santa Cruz

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-01 11:27:30

Yes,

Also, remember that there is always a possible future C++ integration,
by general technical supremacy and standard committee lobbying, in the
back of the big Boost head. This would make it highly realistic
(although it would at that stage lose its Boost label...)

By the way, what happened to your day-time job, James? ;-) I liked the
way to you partitioned yourself into "Professional" and a "Day-time
Job". I assumed your professional side then awakes at night-time ;-)

/David 

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of James Curran
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:16 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: [boost] Re: C++ committee Library TR progress in Santa Cruz

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:apsemc$vbo$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> Just out of curiosity, is it realistic to believe any vendor will 
> supply a different implementation than the Boost version?

    I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors removed all #ifdef's not
needed for their compiler.... And several vendors have written their own
STL's despite the original being available.

--
Truth,
James Curran [MVP]
www.NJTheater.com     (Professional)
www.NovelTheory.com  (Personal)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost