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

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 07:40:13

David Abrahams wrote:
> Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> 
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>>Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:20050423224553.M84538_at_crystalclearsoftware.com...
>>>>>| On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
>>>>>| What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really
>>>>>| important.
>>>>>
>>>>>people are working on a proposal about reflection for C++0x which
>>>>>would give automatic serialization; so we'd better wait with this.
>>>>
>>>>Having a reflection facility in C++ does not obviate the need for a
>>>>serialization library. Furthermore since the reflection work is
>>>>closed to those outside of the committee, AFAICS
>>>
>>>What can you see that indicates the work is closed to those outside
>>>the committee?
>>
>>1) I asked Gabriel Dos Reis to participate in the work on reflection and 
>>was told that my input was not needed, but if they needed someone to 
>>test things out, I could volunteer. In effect I was told to get lost, 
>>evidently because I was not a member of the committee or was not 
>>considered smart enough or important enough to contribute.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from what Gaby says.  He's just
> one guy with a not-always-smooth email demeanor.  Never forget that
> the committee is made up of individuals, and that people working on
> proposals are not necessarily tied to the committee in any particular
> way.  I would also not conclude from this that Gaby would welcome your
> help if you were a committee member.  In other words, "closed to those
> outside the committee" is probably not the right conclusion.  Those
> working on the reflection project may still not be interested in your
> input for whatever reasons, of course, but you might try knocking on a
> few other doors.
> 
> 
>>2) Where is the information regarding reflection and the work being
>>done on it published ?
> 
> 
> I don't think any information is being published.  This is not a
> "committee project," at least not yet.  This is some people working on
> a project that they *may* eventually bring to the committee in the
> form of a proposal, if they ever finish it ;-)
> 
> 
>>If it is not closed to those outside the committee, then the ongoing
>>work on it should be accessible to others, and others should be able
>>to comment on it and contribute to it.
> 
> 
> Not neccessarily.  Who the people on that project decide to accept
> contributions from is really up to them.
> 
> 
>>>>I will be sorely disappointed if C++ does not have serialization in
>>>>the next C++ standard, but perhaps the C++ committee is working on
>>>>that also.
>>>
>>>You can pretty much tell what the committee is working on by
>>>looking at the contents of the publicly available mailings.  There
>>>haven't been any serialization papers in any mailings I've seen.
>>>If you want to avoid disappointment, I suggest you write and submit
>>>a proposal.
>>
>>I was promoting the idea that the Boost Serialization library be 
>>submitted. 
> 
> 
> My suggestion applies perfectly.  Why don't you propose it?
> 
> 
>>If the Boost serialization library is not submitted, and the C++
>>committee is not intending to have a serialization library, I think
>>it will be a big mistake but I have no serialization library of my
>>own to submit 
> 
> 
> Pete Becker proposed, essentially, the Boost.Threads design.  It
> doesn't have to be "your own."
> 
> 
>>as I think the Boost one is better than anything I could do and
>>better than anything else I have ever seen using standard C++. I
>>will be glad to work with Mr. Ramey on the writing up a proposal
>>part, since I am a fairly good writer, but it is obviously up to him
>>and not me whether he wants to propose the library to the committee.
> 
> 
> Not really.  If you really want this to happen, *you* should commit
> yourself to proposing it, and then invite Mr. Ramey to join you.

I disagree on this. It is clearly wrong, in my eyes, to propose any 
library to the C++ standard committee when that library is someone 
else's work. I greatly respect Mr. Ramey for the work he has done and is 
doing to make the Boost serialization library as good as it is but I 
would never want to propose such a library for inclusion as a standard 
library unless the creator of the library wanted to promote it also. It 
is also unfair to put that creator in such a position of extra work 
which standardizing a library might entail.