Re: [boost] Boost libraries for 'TR2'

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost libraries for 'TR2'
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-18 01:09:28

"Vicente J. Botet Escriba" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4EC44785.5040401_at_wanadoo.fr...
> Hi,
>
> just out of curiosity, which Boost libraries could we expect to be 
> proposed for the TR2 (or whatever the new C++ run for new libraries will 
> be called)?
>
> Who is working on a concrete proposal? Which libraries would you like to 
> be proposed?
>
>
> I would like myself to see between others: Accumulators, Any, Asio, 
> DynamicBitset, Filesystem, Format, Fusion, Interprocess, Intrusive, Mpl, 
> Optional, PointerContainer, ProgramOptions, Proto, Range, Signals, Thread 
> (shared locks), Units and Variant.

Just out of curiosity - suppose someone had a library whose implementation
depended heavily upon some other libraries like mpl, boost/iterators and 
boost/config.
How could such a library get included in the standard if the other 
pre-requisite
libraries aren't in the standard.

I realise that the standard specifies only the interface.  Taking the fusion
library as just an example, it's not really practical to implement such a 
thing
without mpl, config, pre-processor, and likely others.

When I see the list above, I'm wondering if the concept of standard library
isn't getting out of hand. Or maybe the standandard library needs to be
divided into more than one tier- low level facilities like smart pointer and
"application like" facilities like asio.

More to the point, if something like fusion is added to the standard and
the interface is defined - is someone actually going to re-implement it?
That would seem unbelievable to me.

Robert Ramey

>
> Best,
> Vicente
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>