Subject: Re: [boost] TR2 is dead; multiple TR's coming instead
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-19 11:26:12
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
The context was a discussion of an effort by Herb Sutter to get some
large corporations to start contributing libraries. Because the
discussion was focused on that effort, someone erroneously jumped to
the conclusion that the committee no long cared about other source.
Bjarne jumped in to say we still very much cared about traditional
sources, mentioning Boost and one or two others. I doubt he had
anything specific in mind.
> While the latter seems almost impossible given the low throughput
> reviews (not because of the process but the lack of managers).
Yeah, we need to fix that problem. But that's a different discussion.
>> 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
> 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
A study group per domain, although some domains may only have one
proposal active a given time.
> I don't see a "Data Structures" group. Was that considered? Will it be
So far, groups are only being formed if they have specific proposals
to work on, and the LWG or EWG wants to pass the work off to a
sub-Group. So nothing on Data Structures, yet.
Man and woman power is an issue too. There were new faces and a lot of
energy at the meeting; let's hope that continues and wasn't just
because the meeting was in Hawaii.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk