Subject: Re: [boost] Foundational vs non-foundational libraries (was: Re: Thoughts on Boost v2)
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 08:53:42
On 21 May 2014 13:42, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 21 May 2014 at 13:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Did exception_ptr come from Boost?
>> It first appeared in Boost 1.36, nearly two years after Beman's first
>> WG21 proposal for exception propagation and 18 months after Peter's
>> exception_ptr proposal that was closer.
> I did not know that.
>> I'm not sure the absence/presence of anything in C11 had much
>> influence on C++11, remember C++0x was feature-complete many years
>> ago, but it took a long time to bake the final standard (even /losing/
>> features along the way).
> Ok, I'll put it the other way round then: it's hard to imagine C
> standardising a feature without C++ improving/"improving" on it.
Thankfully C++ doesn't seem to be incorporating the optional Annex K
from C11, with the bounds-checking interfaces such as tmpnam_s.
I still think the comparisons with C11 aren't relevant and don't help
make your point.
>> > I personally found this pattern to be highly useful. It suggests to
>> > us what added to recent Boost will enter C++ 17 or TR3, so taking a
>> > guess:
>> There isn't going to be a TR2, let alone a TR3, instead there are
>> going to be several mostly-independent Technical Specification
> I'm a victim of Wikipedia on this! I thought I remembered that TRs
> were the way of the dodo, but
> ort_2 seemed to indicate TR2 was still happening.
> If someone more familiar with the committee's current plans could
> update that section correctly, that would be great.
> Eh, okay, this is actually news to me that a std::experimental is
> planned. Do we know what will enter it yet?
https://isocpp.org/std/status has some details, see the individual TS
drafts for full contents.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk