From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-13 09:32:49
On Apr 13, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Andy Little wrote:
> A major reason given
> by the committee AFAICS (in GUI case) was that the committee doesnt
> have enough
> time to deal with it.
This is not exactly correct. The committee does not have enough time
to *design* a GUI library, nor any other library. Besides, you
wouldn't want a library designed by committee, would you?
If someone steps up with a proposal for a GUI library, the committee
will review it.
> Yet there seems to be adequate time to discuss the
> addition of more complexities to the language itself.
These are different groups within the C++ committee. Libraries are
handled by the Library Working Group, language extensions are handled
by the Evolution Working Group. Discussing language extensions rarely
takes away time from the discussion of new/improved libraries, except
where language changes can have a large effect on how libraries are
written (e.g., concepts and move semantics).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk