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
> | 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
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
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...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk