Re: [boost] Report from Berlin C++ Standards Committee meeting

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-10 06:10:04

"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:443983B2.1080604_at_crystalclearsoftware.com...
> Beman Dawes wrote:
>> The C++ Standards Committee met last week in Berlin, Germany. Of interest 
>> to
>> Boosters:
>
> Thx for the update -- interesting as usual.  Looks like the committee
> was busy!
>
>> * A Boost Date-Time query was presented at the last meeting, and LWG 
>> members
>> again in Berlin indicated interest in seeing a full proposal for TR2.
>
> The complete date-time proposal will be available for Portland and I
> expect to be at the meeting as well.

Excellent!

>> * A Boost Networking [asio] query was presented, and the LWG has 
>> indicated
>> their interest in a full proposal for TR2. The developer of a competing
>> proposal has graciously thrown his support behind the Boost proposal, and
>> may propose some additional higher level functionality.
>
> I have some interest and concerns about the asio as a pure networking
> proposal -- it's really an io library proposal with networking.  As
> such, there are some issues not currently addressed by the library that
> I can see the committee being worried about.  In any case, I can see
> Chris needing a helping hand to get this done in time -- presuming that
> he is still able to pursue this deadline.

N1974 Boost Network Library Query from Chris will appear in the post-meeting 
mailing, which will be available in two or three weeks. Chris was aware of 
the October deadline at the time he wrote his query.

> Can you point us to the competing proposal/developer?

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1925.pdf

>...
> I'd still really like to see a database binding library make it into
> TR2.  Not having this is killing C++ against Java for application
> developers.  We've had some periodic fits and starts, but it seems clear
> we won't have a Boost library by then.  I'd still like to see someone
> with some time step up and take this on.  It's been done about 10 times
> so I think a proposal could be gleaned from the best of the current
> bindings...

My guess is the LWG and the committee would welcome such a proposal. Note 
that the October meeting deadline is for a proposal that includes proposed 
wording for the TR. The wording does not have to be 100% complete - as long 
as it is pretty good it would be sufficient to meet the October deadline.

The LWG would almost certainly require a reference implementation, and some 
actual use in real-world applications, but that doesn't have to have 
happened by October as long as the proposal in generally based on existing 
practice. If a reference implementation was available on Boost and starting 
to get real-world use by spring 2007, that should be good enough if the 
library looks good otherwise.

--Beman