From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-10 09:07:33
"Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Stefan Strasser" <sstrasser_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> you might be interested in this document from the new c++0x mailing:
>> for the naming discussion, proposed syntax is for(int i : vec)
>> (personally I don't care if it's called BOOST_FOREACH or BOOST_FOR)
> This proposal might be a good reason to rush BOOST_FOREACH into boost
> version 1.33. If the standards committee is considering adding something
> like BOOST_FOREACH, it would be good for them to have some data about how
> easy and useful the average programmer finds this functionality.
I disagree. Rushing something into a release is a formula for mistakes.
Also, there are very likely to be other Boost libraries added or modified in
1.34 that won't make it into 1.33 that get proposed for standardization.
That isn't a good argument for hold 1.33. It is a good argument for not
waiting too long to release 1.34.
All IMO, of course.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk