From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-25 10:27:46
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:43:31 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
| > | Agree on this too.
| > |
| > | Should we be considering some of the new collection types:
| > circular_buffer, | mutli_array, multi_index, ptr_containers?
| > I asked abuot ptr_containers and the answer was "not yet".
| Hmm, not sure what to make of that. I guess one of the interesting
| moving forward is 'when being in boost is enough'. Practically speaking
| clear that some things in boost will probably never make it into the
| but it doesn't matter that much because they are available for all.
| Boost.graph appears to be in that category -- widely used, but probably
| doesn't need to be in the standard. For example, maybe there's no real
| advantage in trying to get standardized xml processing capabilities -- it's
| too big and there plenty of them out there for free. So the market is
| saturated and adding the stamp of the standard isn't helpful.
Well, I think it is a good thing that the committee is acting more focused so
that its time
is spend on libraries that can benefit as many users as possible.
| > | Or are the uses too esoteric for
| > | standarization?
| > probably. I wouldn't write any proposal before hearing what the
| > committee thinks; In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart
| > pointer and it should never have gotten that far; I mean, David H.
| > spent a lot of time writing the proposal and that time could have
| > been saved.
| That's too bad. I really hope this doesn't mean that David is going to stop
| working on the library....
I hope that too; the thing is that getting it into boost is also an important
goal; we simply can't put everything in the standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk