From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-09 14:34:31
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> The library standard doesn't "work". It can't. It's not code. The
>> standard doesn't include an implemenation. And once we
>> have a reference implementation which can be compiled on a
>> language conformant compiler, what is gained from the work
>> required to add it to the standard?
> Wider audience, multiple competing implementations, availability. You can
> depend on the standard library being available for use even if for
> administrative/legal/whatever reasons no third party code is allowed on a
Right, but standardization has disadvantages. It's set in stone in the
sense that changes in future standards necessarily have backwards
compatibility as an overriding concern. With add-on libraries, things can
evolve in a much more reasonable manner - if someone is really tied to old
behavior they can use an older version of boost.
Consider the fiasco with std::vector<bool>. If it had been a boost library,
it would have been fixed years ago!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk