Boost logo

Boost :

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-01 13:51:25

James Curran wrote:

> 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.

But how many compiler vendors write a standard library implementation
for just their compiler? All the SCL implementations I'm aware of are
written by library vendors, not compiler vendors. And they are all
designed to work on multiple compilers. So I don't see how removing
portability is an improvement. I suppose if there were significant QoI
issues to be addressed, a library vendor might modify the implementation
to reflect that. But it seems that metalibraries like tuples leave less
and less room for the type of optimizations you see in, say, SGI's node
allocators for their STL implementation. And if something like Spirit
were to be accepted for the TR, how likely is it that any vendor would
be able to provide a different implementation without breaking the
library? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm curious.


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