Re: [boost] TR2 is dead; multiple TR's coming instead

Subject: Re: [boost] TR2 is dead; multiple TR's coming instead
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-18 16:13:08

On 2/17/2012 11:32 AM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> The C++ committee met last week. There was lot's of discussion and
> plans to markedly increase the size of the standard library. Boost has
> an important part to play; Bjarne Stroustrup hoped for "doubling the
> output of Boost."

Is that output meant to be accomplished by doubling the percentage of 
current Boost libraries that get into the TRs? Or doubling the number of 
libraries in Boost? I ask because the former might be possible, although 
not easy. While the latter seems almost impossible given the low 
throughput reviews (not because of the process but the lack of managers).

> Here are some of the process changes:
>
> * Library proposals will be taken on as "work Items". A decision as to
> whether a work item ends up in a technical report, in the standard
> itself, or even becomes a stand-alone international standard, will be
> deferred until technical work is complete (I.E. full standardese
> complete, polished, and ready to ship).
>
> * Domain specific "Study Groups" will replace the LWG's current
> sub-groups. Study groups have official ISO standing, so can get more
> work done between meetings than the old sub-groups, which were
> unofficial.

Trying to understand this new structure.. Does it mean that a Study 
Group would handle multiple proposals within a domain? Or making a Study 
Group per proposal?

> The study groups set up so far:
>
> * SG1: Concurrency and Parallelism (chair: Hans Boehm). This is the
> old Concurrency sub-group.
>
> * SG2: Modules (chair: Doug Gregor). A new sub-group of the
> committee's evolution working group (EWG).
>
> * SG3: File System (chair: Beman Dawes). A LWG sub-group to handle the
> Boost.Filesystem work item approved at the meeting.
>
> * SG4: Networking (chair: Kyle Kloepper). A LWG sub-group to handle
> the Boost.Asio work item approved at the meeting.

I don't see a "Data Structures" group. Was that considered? Will it be 
considered?

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail