Re: [Boost-docs] stl mini-review

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] stl mini-review
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-09-01 19:43:02

on Fri Aug 31 2007, Andrew Sutton <asutton-AT-cs.kent.edu> wrote:

>> Andrew,
>>
>> It just occurred to me that it might help your work if you refer to
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2322.pdf and
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2323.pdf
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> I have been - at least the utilities draft. I actually had the  
> concept code in the docs at one time, but took it out because it was  
> a little distracting. However, some of the concepts in the document  
> are creeping into my work - the Destructible concept, for example.
>
> I guess one could argue that the Boost standard docs _should_ target C 
> ++-0x and include reference material for rvalue references, move  
> semantics, auto types, range-based loops, etc. It wasn't my intention  
> when I started, but it might be a worthwhile effort. My concern is  
> that writing reference docs for C++0x is kind of a moving target. I'm  
> just not sure how rapid it's gyrating :) On the other hand, we  
> wouldn't have to rewrite all the docs in a couple years time.
>
> What do you think? Focus on what is and what's been, or start looking  
> further ahead. It's certainly possible to flag certain features,  
> requirements, etc. with some kind of "Warning! You're compiler may  
> not accept this" tag.

I would look ahead.  The C++0x stuff is fairly stable now, and it
allows us to express things much more precisely than we could in the
past.  

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com
The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com