Re: [boost] Boost libraries after C++0x acceptance

From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-08 16:47:41

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of having a library standard anyway?
>>>
>> I have always viewed the importance of a library standard as a means
>> of specifying that an implementation which supports the language must
>> provide the library also.
> 
>> This automatically creates a common set of
>> functionality for all implementations of the language. I view that as a
>> good thing ...
> 
> no disagreement there.  My question is how to guarentee this.  There
> are at least two options:
> 
> a) tweak the library to fit the compiler and meet the standard
> b) all of the following:
>     i) requiring a language conforming implementation for the library
>     ii) provide a reference implementation of the library.
> 
> My view is that the current situation tolerates and perhaps
> encourages the a) while creating a huge amount of work
> in creating the standards.  I believe that this work would
> better be invested elsewhere.  Like actually bringing the
> compiler(s) to conformance.

No one is against doing the work of bringing the compiler to 
conformance, but providing a C++ standard library which works with the 
compiler is part of that conformance also. Many C++ compilers use a 3rd 
party C++ standard library, and there is nothing wrong with that. I 
think that you want the C++ standard committee in b) ii) to provide a 
reference implementation of the library for all compiler vendors to use. 
Is that your argument ?