220 5542 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Fernando Cacciola Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: A library to provide a virtual memory vector of strings Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:11:07 -0300 Lines: 119 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <861959e9-74f3-4ed8-aeca-bad9c3256acd@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1a1ea3e745704e24501fd X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374685907 25511 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2013 17:11:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:11:47 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBVMVYCHQKGQE4ZNBU4Y@isocpp.org Wed Jul 24 19:11:50 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f197.google.com ([209.85.217.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V22bO-00058O-Bz for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:11:50 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f197.google.com with SMTP id w10sf635680lbi.0 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=qTfrjr139LM8PuvO1CGgLqJwPh+R6g34NM5CpmMZt1U=; b=fxKhgQu5tSod0sn+QHikE2IVG/xZ1YI2qgob+dp50P/MVNap+sUe1bLeaK2gq+CBZo GkSM7tsvC3gBNHAPvIK/8raacuBIF0HrF8MOlgWln9pUBHd6G95wv4rf3CQ6RO8c3DyH r1/3xA8d2ED0NuSk9brU0aeXVXixRp4JwF9cHHvoqTcF//sMZv3+YWREwSzasKyOv0lS 8Ihzu0IIvkDG+mC8lG888ASDAJw1T0DmI3h+X2Q8wyshPuFHBMZ/Qxpb7ZHuur2ncCzr Sma8wkC1r+pse8HBf4HNeJxqqN2964VWHEFGWV9O2BzkvMOFZ2oZpHVXAIxikTXhPG5z sHWQ== X-Received: by 10.112.35.12 with SMTP id d12mr8531681lbj.22.1374685909726; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.19.1 with SMTP id a1ls21463lae.74.gmail; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.51.240 with SMTP id n16mr1322333lbo.10.1374685908650; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-lb0-x232.google.com (mail-lb0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c04::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x10si16130923lax.81.2013.07.24.10.11.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::232; Original-Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y6so695325lbh.9 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.116.19 with SMTP id js19mr17261460lab.72.1374685908331; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.186.41 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:11:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: fernando.cacciola@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fernando.cacciola@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fernando.cacciola@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:5542 Archived-At: --001a11c1a1ea3e745704e24501fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > From a (very quick) glance at your PDF it seems the interesting part and > the novelty is in the implementation, but the C++ standard is not an > implementation, it's a specification of visible behaviour, not internal > details. > I got the exat same impression while scanning over the PDF (it's way too large to read top to bottom) but then I started thinking if we are doing the right thing by only standarizing specifications as opposed to somehow "officially" adopting actual libraries. This is just me thinking out loud but, I think most other languages don't work that way. Users of them have "the language on the one hand" but also an "official distribution" which contains a selection of field-proven libraries. Or at the very least they routinely use this or that "de-facto standard", so to speak, library. We have boost, but that doesn't quite cute it. I wonder if it isn't somewhat inefficient to standarize, say, a boost library, given the incredible effort it takes and with the only outcome of more prople using it just because "it comes with the compiler". Wouldn't it be better to just find a process by which any C++ user is given "direct access" to, for example, the boost libraries, as if they where part of C++ itself, but outside ISO? Do end users care about the C++ standard and its specification of libraries? I'd say that not at all, they just care about direct availability of it (i.e. I just grab this compiler and certains libs are right there to use) Like I said, just thinking out loud, but this Quantum library in particular, which seems as usefull as non-standarizable, made me think that we might be doing it all worng in terms of giving end users a great laguage with great tools as well. Best -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --001a11c1a1ea3e745704e24501fd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely <cxx@kayari.org> = wrote:

From a (very quick) glance at your = PDF it seems the interesting part and the novelty is in the implementation,= but the C++ standard is not an implementation, it's a specification of= visible behaviour, not internal details.
=A0
I got the exat same impression while= scanning over the PDF (it's way too large to read top to bottom) but t= hen I started thinking if we are doing the right thing by only standarizing= specifications as opposed to somehow "officially" adopting actua= l libraries. This is just me thinking out loud but, I think most other lang= uages don't work that way.=A0 Users of them have "the language on = the one hand" but also an "official distribution" which cont= ains a selection of field-proven libraries. Or at the very least they routi= nely use this or that "de-facto standard", so to speak, library.<= br> We have boost, but that doesn't quite cute it. I wonder if it isn't= somewhat inefficient to standarize, say, a boost library, given the incred= ible effort it takes and with the only outcome of more prople using it just= because "it comes with the compiler". Wouldn't it be better = to just find a process by which any C++ user is given "direct access&q= uot; to, for example, the boost libraries, as if they where part of C++ its= elf, but outside ISO? Do end users care about the C++ standard and its spec= ification of libraries? I'd say that not at all, they just care about d= irect availability of it (i.e. I just grab this compiler and certains libs = are right there to use)

Like I said, just thinking out loud, b= ut this Quantum library in particular, which seems as usefull as non-standa= rizable, made me think that we might be doing it all worng in terms of givi= ng end users a great laguage with great tools as well.

Best

--
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft= Consulting, Founder
http:= //www.scisoft-consulting.com

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
 
 
--001a11c1a1ea3e745704e24501fd-- .