220 5544 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 15:43:48 -0300 Lines: 115 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=001a11c34b9aaf4b7004e2464c2a X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374691469 25735 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2013 18:44:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:44:29 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOPV7FAXQPRBDOBYCHQKGQENLICNFY@isocpp.org Wed Jul 24 20:44:32 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ee0-f71.google.com ([74.125.83.71]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V2435-0004OW-BM for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:44:31 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ee0-f71.google.com with SMTP id b57sf535693eek.10 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:31 -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=6y7il6kdGnIJ9DxvtbUbb5wEfrcRq6zxPIUx76I6nFM=; b=nxejMo5zJcr2gprGCGtlJtlsM3nQbZeD7v1jRmNFrW8e/IAZFmljkN09J8C/PbDJGC ZbQDe2YTlyPyrpbdJ1l7dKU3Dn4GhQZM/BTdDd3nXuyah7Dy0m0iFQLbLBUhOYIyv/rJ 2JV+7Vc/N766nGE5fqfWAuRtUoXwK9+sGnJJNcscMQNUbmRW6ewYEirmt/9S3ArsYkHL VMiv54aYHFIspMVpMhVStB+wPmbfsD8NMqq/3e7kmdgk4lfDeECREUn3X64LSTuHCSaE hlKBFBwSAfr8binQk81MD+rJqDW8p+HPXG+eyB9vTUCJ51fjyCX+9Avjh0+l+y32N8Gw GRng== X-Received: by 10.152.5.66 with SMTP id q2mr324187laq.9.1374691470525; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.115.202 with SMTP id jq10ls23702lab.101.gmail; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.77.164 with SMTP id t4mr16823097lbw.52.1374691469433; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:29 -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 g10si16268845lae.45.2013.07.24.11.44.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:29 -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 y6so763238lbh.23 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.42.236 with SMTP id r12mr17394953lal.46.1374691468985; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.114.186.41 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:43:48 -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:5544 Archived-At: --001a11c34b9aaf4b7004e2464c2a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Nicol Bolas wrote: > > > Standard libraries don't have that problem (theoretically). When we add > language features, we make a good faith effort to stick them into the > standard libraries too. > > > OK. I agree with your diagnosis. So, since we don't have any official implementation (1) the best we can do is work toghether to come up with a formal specification of, even, libraries, then hope that implementation vendors implement it. (2) external library authors are almost necessarily behind the evolution of Core C++ and it practice. most don't even caught up even after they should. Allow me to insist that we do have a problem in terms of what end users get from the language. Wouldn't these reasons suggest that C++ actually needs an official implementation, at least an official library implementation? I wonder if the collective effort here in reviewing and formalizing library proposals wouldn't be more efective if the result where a library implementation instead of an ISO formalization. I don't know what vendors would think about it but, given my very short experience with these now open std lists, compared to my experience with boost, it seems that we would create one hell of a library much faster than we create the std text for it. 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/. --001a11c34b9aaf4b7004e2464c2a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Nicol Bolas <jmckesson@gmail.com> wrote:


Standard libraries don't ha= ve that problem (theoretically). When we add language features, we make a g= ood faith effort to stick them into the standard libraries too.

=A0
OK. I agree with your diagnosis.

<= /div>
So, since we don't have any official implementation

(= 1) the best we can do is work toghether to come up with a formal specificat= ion of, even, libraries, then hope that implementation vendors implement it= ..

(2) external library authors are almost necessarily behind t= he evolution of Core C++ and it practice. most don't even caught up eve= n after they should.

Allow me to insist that we do have a= problem in terms of what end users get from the language. Wouldn't the= se reasons suggest that C++ actually needs an official implementation, at l= east an official library implementation?

I wonder if the collective effort here in reviewing and form= alizing library proposals wouldn't be more efective if the result where= a library implementation instead of an ISO formalization. I don't know= what vendors would think about it but, given my very short experience with= these now open std lists, compared to my experience with boost, it seems t= hat we would create one hell of a library much faster than we create the st= d text for it.

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>.
 
 
--001a11c34b9aaf4b7004e2464c2a-- .