Re: [Boost-users] boost.org home page

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] boost.org home page
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-09 18:44:00

Le 10/11/11 00:26, Jerry Jeremiah a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> The boost home page says:
>
> "We aim to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations
> so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost
> libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library
> Technical Report (TR1) and will be in the new C++0x Standard now being
> finalized. C++0x will also include several more Boost libraries in addition to
> those from TR1. More Boost libraries are proposed for TR2."
>
> Now that the standard is final we should change this.  What I think people
> would like to see is which boost libraries are reflected in the standard and
> how those standard ones differ from the boost ones.  I know the boost ones
> have to be more feature rich than the standard ones because the boost ones
> are continuously being extended and the standard ones are locked in stone.
>
> Unfortunately that's all I really know. Now, I realize probably everyone who
> actually knows this information is probably busier than I so I need to be the
> one that actually makes the time to figure it out amd create a draft of the
> new information.  Would it be possible for one of you to give me a list of all
> the boost libraries that are reflected in the new standard?
>
Hi,

maybe you can find what you are looking for here 
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/?view=filtered_std-tr1
and here http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/?view=filtered_std-proposal.

While you are right that Boost libraries that have the corresponding on 
the standard would provide more features in the form of extensions, this 
is not always the case that the Boost libraries covers all the standard 
c++11 features. Take in account that the Boost libraries are intended to 
work on c++03 compilers. This can be done either because the library has 
not yet been adapted to the standard c++11 language (missing features in 
compilers, ...) or because the library is not trying to follow the 
standard. I agree that each Boost. "standard" library should include 
clearly the limitations respect to the standard c++11 and how the 
extension are activated. Well, I think that I need myself to start 
working on for Boost.Ratio and Boost.Chrono. For the limitations, it 
will be great to know if the author intends to remove the limitation and 
when.

Best,
Vicente