From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-08-11 00:15:51
The C++ committee is at its best when it standardizes existing practice (though it has seen both successes and failures at being inventive). And the committee is grateful for the contributions that have come from organizations such as boost. Indeed, boost was started by a well-regarded long-time committee member whoâs goal was to provide a library testing ground for libraries to be considered for standardization.
Indeed, from https://www.boost.org/:
> We aim to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization.
My best guess is Beman wrote those words. :-)
Speaking as chair of the Directions Group for the C++ committee, it is my sincere hope that boost continues that mission.
On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> In case it wasn't obvious, this is one more bullet in my campaign to see the standards committee narrow it's scope to the things that only such a committee can do. That is:
> a) core language syntax and semantics
> b) core libraries which place a common interface on underlying machine or operating system implementations
> Other stuff should be considered separately. Preferably by some other organization but at least by a separate committee. The current structure is failing to scale and the problem is growing (exponentially?). I'm sorry I continue to harp on this, but I'm not getting traction. Note that a huge portion of standard libraries have their origin in other organizations - stl, boost, and others. The committee has a poor track record in delivering quality libraries in a timely manner.
> Robert Ramey
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk