From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-11 00:02:15
Christopher Kohlhoff wrote:
> While I certainly intend it to be a comprehensive io library
> eventually, at the moment it only does networking :)
Yes -- so ultimately there is a question about focus in the proposal --
networking or io.
>> As such, there are some issues not currently
>> addressed by the library that I can see the committee being
>> worried about.
> I presume you are at least partially referring to iostreams
> integration? Wrt iostreams support we should probably kick off
> some discussion asap on exactly what form that should take. I'll
> start a new thread for it.
Yes that's it -- I'll answer that thread in a bit.
>> 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.
> That's the plan.
Glad to hear it :-)
>> We should probably organize a group of interested folks to
>> help this along given the scope and importance of the job.
> This is how I see things proceeding:
> - I need to get the next version with the breaking interface
> changes from the review out the door.
> - A brief discussion on what features are in or out of a
> proposal (although I have a fair idea of this already), based
> on the new version.
> - I knock together a rough draft proposal.
> - With interested parties, the proposal goes through a process
> of iterative modification and review.
> I am putting as much as possible of my spare time (such as it
> is) towards getting this next version out. I'm wary of putting a
> date on it, but there are only a couple of major changes left on
> my to-do list.
Sounds good. I am worried that even with the iostream integration the
proposal won't have Doug's one-line wget implementation, but we'll see.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk