Subject: Re: [boost] [filesystem] Request for comments on proposed relative() function
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-17 08:41:10
On May 16, 2014 6:08:18 PM EDT, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Yakov Galka <ybungalobill_at_[hidden]>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:53 AM, Gavin Lambert <gavinl_at_[hidden]
>> > I think most of the points you brought up here aren't really
>> > this particular thread, and would have been better made in a
>> > thread (or by writing your own alternative implementation). I
>> > likely that grand sweeping changes to an existing accepted library
>> > get anywhere. But that doesn't mean you couldn't submit an
>> > intended to supersede it; that's happened in the past.
>> True, some of them are off-topic. And I do have an alternative path
>> implementation that I'm using myself, which I might release some day.
>> However, boost.filesystem already undergone three major versions, and
>> actively pushed to being standardized. So fixing it might be more
>> than introducing another library, that fixes those concrete problems
>> presents an entirely different, likely controversial, approach.
>Filesystem will be a Technical Specification initially, rather than
>part of the Standard Library. Full standardization is tentatively
>for C++17. Voting on the Filesystem TS finished in January, and the
>committee is expected to finish comment resolution at the June meeting
>Rapperswil, Switzerland. The deadline for the pre-meeting mailing is a
>from today, so there really isn't time to do more than resolve national
>body comments from the PDTS voting.
IOW, Yakov, there's still time to head off standardization of the library, as is, but you must be very active now on iso.cpp and elsewhere to see your vision come to fruition.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk