Re: [boost] Re: TR2 and C++0x heads up

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-23 17:45:53

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:6.0.3.0.2.20050422110501.042b2a20_at_mailhost.esva.net...
> 
> | So far there are plans to propose Boost.Threads, Boost.Filesystem, 
> and | Boost.Signals. As well as proposals for some of the more major 
> libraries, I | personally hope someone will do a sweep through Boost 
> looking at some of | the smaller utilities and helpers for a 
> possible "Small Additions" | proposal.
> 
> I believe Alisdair was considering to work on boost.format.
> 
> Besides, boost.date_time I think these other libs are good 
> candidates (maybe with slight modifications):
> 
> 1. conversion
> 2. optional
> 3. string algorithms
> 4. utility

Agree on these.

> 5. variant

Is variant used widely enough to spend the time to standardize?

> 6. iostreams

Agree on this too.

Should we be considering some of the new collection types: circular_buffer,
mutli_array, multi_index, ptr_containers?  Or are the uses too esoteric for
standarization?  What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really
important.

In the "yet-to-be-developed would use it on almost every major project wish
list" (alternatively called the "we should use Java because C++ doesn't have
these libs wishlist")

--> relational database access
--> logging
 I realize we've had a bunch of discussion here, but i wonder if someone
 should consider submitting log4cxx from apache
 http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/. No reason why boost has to the 
 the source of all the good libs ;-)
--> number types (unlimited / fixed point)
--> process management

I realize all this would be a stretch, but I was just reading Bjarne's CUJ
musings about how the LWG should be aggressive in standarizing libraries...

Jeff