Re: [boost] Questions about the C++ standard process - Was: Boost libraries for 'TR2'

Subject: Re: [boost] Questions about the C++ standard process - Was: Boost libraries for 'TR2'
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-22 13:44:44

1.  I am a relatively new member of the C++ Committee.
2.  These opinions are my own; I am NOT speaking for the Committee.
3.  If the moderators deem this topic unacceptable for this list, I
will respect it.

On 22 November 2011 11:02, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> But that's all really aside from my main concern.  I'm really thinking
> of something quite different.  My understanding is that the the
> C++ commitee defines the requirements that a C++ compiler
> must fulfill to be considered "conforming".

"Hosted" implementations require all the libraries; "freestanding"
implementations require a very small subset of them (you'll need a
copy of the standard to see which ones, as the list was changed since
n3242 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3242.pdf>,
the last publicly available draft).  More details on the differences
between hosted and freestanding can be found in the standard.

> d) doesn't adding libraries to the standard make it more
> difficult and expensive to produce and sell a "conforming" C++ compiler.
> Is this a good thing.  Wouldn't adding hard to implement
> libraries like fusion make this problem (if it is a problem) worse?

That's the tradeoff, isn't it, finding the balance between being
useful for users (so they buy/use the product) and doable for
implementers.

> e) I question the priorities of the standards committee.  I see
> lambdas as interesting, but really I can't imagine any of the customers
> I deal with every using them. (get other customers? - right). and this
> has to add complexity the the process of making a new C++
> compiler.

As a user, I very much welcome lambda support, both syntactically and
performance compared with Boost.Lambda.  This is not to put down
Boost.Lambda; there is only so much one can do in a library.  And
there are currently things the various Boost lambda libraries can do
which the C++ lambdas cannot (such as polymorphic lambdas).

>  And a lot of commitee effort is spent on this.
> Meanwhile somethings create problems like issues raised
> by run time linking - (ODR violations, visibility, etc.) seem
> to get less attention - even though I would think they would
> be easier to address.

Do you have a proposal?

The C++ Committee, like Boost, is an all-volunteer organization.
Members work on what they feel is important and what they are
passionate about.

How does one get "Boost" to do something?  Same strategies apply to
getting the Committee to do something.

>  Of course this is just me speaking as a
> lowly application developer.

If you want a louder voice, come to a Committee meeting.

>
> I see competition for C++ not as coming from Haskell
> (though this has some good ideas) but rather from Java and VisualBasic.

Java has a large library available, which would be an argument for
increasing the size of the C++ Standard Library.
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  [phone]