bdawes@acm.org (Beman Dawes) wrote in message news:<70fa0367.0307030234.33c2b49c@posting.google.com>...
> scott@coyotegulch.com (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote in message news:<pan.2003.06.30.00.48.26.743059@coyotegulch.com>...
> > What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part) being
> > integrated into the next C++ Standard?
>
> Ah! The committee needs to do some communicating. So... See
> http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/library_technical_report.html

Is this the only place where the information is? I could not get to
this link. Maybe there is a problem with the site?

> For this Technical Report, the cutoff date has already passed. So
> except for two or three proposals still in the pipeline, the content
> of this first Library TR are firming up.
> Of the 12 proposals accepted so far, 10 grew out of the Boost
> libraries.

Do you have a URL for what those 10 proposals were?

-Andrew M.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

In article <d1a33011.0307120146.77d90fc@posting.google.com>,
 on Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:44:42 +0000 (UTC),
 apm35@student.open.ac.uk (apm) wrote:

> bdawes@acm.org (Beman Dawes) wrote in message
> news:<70fa0367.0307030234.33c2b49c@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Ah! The committee needs to do some communicating. So... See
> > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/library_technical_report.html
>
> Is this the only place where the information is? I could not get to
> this link. Maybe there is a problem with the site?

Works fine from here. I don't _think_ they're in an area whose access is
restricted to committee members?

> > For this Technical Report, the cutoff date has already passed. So
> > except for two or three proposals still in the pipeline, the content
> > of this first Library TR are firming up.
> > Of the 12 proposals accepted so far, 10 grew out of the Boost
> > libraries.
>
> Do you have a URL for what those 10 proposals were?

It was the one given above :)

Regards,
 Andy S.
--
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter
 how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first,
 and is waiting for it."                  -- Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

In article <d6gf5rjg.fsf@evo6.com>, Andy Sawyer <andys@despammed.com>
writes
>Works fine from here. I don't _think_ they're in an area whose access is
>restricted to committee members?

No but the url it was down for a time yesterday

--
Francis Glassborow      ACCU
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

In article <d6gf5rjg.fsf@evo6.com>, Andy Sawyer wrote:
> In article <d1a33011.0307120146.77d90fc@posting.google.com>,
>  on Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:44:42 +0000 (UTC),
>  apm35@student.open.ac.uk (apm) wrote:
>
>> bdawes@acm.org (Beman Dawes) wrote in message
>> news:<70fa0367.0307030234.33c2b49c@posting.google.com>...
>> >
>> > Ah! The committee needs to do some communicating. So... See
>> > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/library_technical_report.html
>>
>> Is this the only place where the information is? I could not get to
>> this link. Maybe there is a problem with the site?
>
> Works fine from here. I don't _think_ they're in an area whose access is
> restricted to committee members?
<snip>

Slashdot linked to the post-Oxford mailings on Friday, overwhelming the
server for a while.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

llewelly wrote:
>
> I am getting the impression that we can say 3 things about the library
>     TR:
>
>     (a) It is informative.
>     (b) It is not the standard.
>     (c) It is produced by many of the same people who are on the
>         standards committee.
>

c) is misleading. A TR is an official document produced by a standards
committee. But it isn't a standard, just advice.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

"Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.06.30.00.48.26.743059@coyotegulch.com...
> What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part) being
> integrated into the next C++ Standard?

In whole, never.   A lot of it doesn't merit inclusion.   Hopefully some of the
better parts (or similar behaving features) could be.


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Edward Diener wrote:
>
> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part)
> > being integrated into the next C++ Standard?
> >
> > I keep getting asked the question, and wondered if any consensus had
> > emerged among C++ standardizers.
>
> Some of the Boost libraries have already been accepted into the next C++
> standard.

Nothing has been accepted into the next standard. Some of the Boost
librarys have been accepted for TR1, which is a technical report. The
ISO web site describes a technical report as "An informative document
containing information of a different kind from that normally published
in a normative document." It's not a standard, and it isn't a commitment
to what will go in any subsequent standard.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
 If followups aren't topical to comp.std.c++, please direct
discussion to a more suitable forum.



===================================== END OF MODERATOR'S COMMENT
It's true that some boost libraries address areas of special interest not
suitable for inclusion in a standard library, that there is significant
overlap between some of the libraries, and that some libraries are not as
comprehensive as they could be. Otherwise, what's wrong with boost?

""Ron Natalie"" <ron@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:<3f02e742$0$87881$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>...
>
> "Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.30.00.48.26.743059@coyotegulch.com...
> > What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part)
being
> > integrated into the next C++ Standard?
>
> In whole, never. A lot of it doesn't merit inclusion. Hopefully some of
the
> better parts (or similar behaving features) could be.
>
>
> ---

> [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
> [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
> [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
> [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]
>

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

""Jonathan D. Turkanis"" <turkanis@kangaroologic.com> wrote in message
news:AIEGJOHFAGFIFHLCMACDEEDGCAAA.turkanis@kangaroologic.com...
>
> ===================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>  If followups aren't topical to comp.std.c++, please direct
> discussion to a more suitable forum.

I'm going to address the standards issues rather than the general "what's wrong with
boost?" query to keep it topical

> It's true that some boost libraries address areas of special interest not
> suitable for inclusion in a standard library, that there is significant
> overlap between some of the libraries, and that some libraries are not as
> comprehensive as they could be. Otherwise, what's wrong with boost?

Perhaps "a lot" was too strong, but there are many things in there that I don't
believe belong in the language library.   One power of C++ and C over the years
is that the languages themselves do not attempt to encompass the entire range
of things you might want to ever write in the language.   They do not aspire to
be Java-like in that regard.   While the core boost has some handy features
(some smart pointer class in addition to auto_ptr is sorely missing from the C++
standard), Boost is rapidly becoming a dumping ground for everybody's pet
projects:  parsers, threading, python, ...


---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

turkanis@kangaroologic.com ("Jonathan D. Turkanis") wrote:
> ""Ron Natalie"" <ron@sensor.com> wrote:
> > In whole, never. A lot of it doesn't merit inclusion. Hopefully some of
> > the better parts (or similar behaving features) could be.

> It's true that some boost libraries address areas of special interest not
> suitable for inclusion in a standard library, that there is significant
> overlap between some of the libraries, and that some libraries are not as
> comprehensive as they could be.

This essentially sumarizes the "In whole, never" part.

> Otherwise, what's wrong with boost?

There are several aspects why things might not be included in the standard:

- For some of the Boost libraries there are already alternatives which also
  establish existing practise and which may be choosen rather than the
  corresponding Boost library for whatever reason.

- The amount of working going into standardizing libraries, even if a rather
  complete specification is available, is rather big and the working time of
  the committee is rather limited (although it is theoretically rather big
  in practise it is not: essentially everybody interested could work full
  time for the committee).

- There are two major reasons why things should go into the standard:
  - It cannot be implemented portably (eg. support for multi-threading).
  - It is that useful that most applications effectively need a corresponding
    component (eg. smart pointers).
  (the two mentioned components are intended just to get an idea; I'm neither
  claiming that it is indeed impossible to implement threads portably nor
  that every application needs smart pointers).
  Not all libraries in Boost match either of these reasons.

- Someone has to push a library into the standard and be a driving force to
  make it happen. This involves plearurable activities like drinking lots of
  beer (or coke in my personal case) and convincing people of the usefulness
  of the library, as well as painful activities like actually writing down
  details specifications and explaining for a hunderdth time why something is
  the way it is because some committee member awoke from his games, I mean,
  returned from his urgent business in another working group.

That is, there is not necessarily anything wrong with Boost if not all of the
feasible libraries is accepted: even technically excellent libraries won't be
accepted if nobody write a proposal for including them in first place. Beman
actually does a good job at bring proposals forward to the library working
group (or making people interested in the library bringing them forward).
There will still be libraries which won't make it for whatever reasons.
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

scott@coyotegulch.com (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote in message news:<pan.2003.06.30.00.48.26.743059@coyotegulch.com>...
> What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part) being
> integrated into the next C++ Standard?

Ah! The committee needs to do some communicating. So... See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/library_technical_report.html

> I keep getting asked the question, and wondered if any consensus had
> emerged among C++ standardizers.

For this Technical Report, the cutoff date has already passed. So
except for two or three proposals still in the pipeline, the content
of this first Library TR are firming up.

Of the 12 proposals accepted so far, 10 grew out of the Boost
libraries.

(One Boost library, static assert, is also likely to become part of
C++, but as a core language feature rather than part of the library.)

--Beman Dawes

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

ron@sensor.com ("Ron Natalie") writes:

|>  "Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com> wrote in message
|>  news:pan.2003.06.30.00.48.26.743059@coyotegulch.com...
|>  > What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in
|>  > part) being integrated into the next C++ Standard?

|>  In whole, never.  A lot of it doesn't merit inclusion.  Hopefully
|>  some of the better parts (or similar behaving features) could be.

Just to be clear (I think it is what Ron meant): some of it doesn't
merit inclusion on such grounds as general interest.  (CRC comes to
mind.)  That isn't meant as a criticism of the quality of the code or
of the interface.

--=20
James Kanze                                  mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.fr
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                      Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
11 rue de Rambouillet, 78460 Chevreuse, France  Tel. +33 1 41 89 80 93

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

petebecker@acm.org (Pete Becker) writes:

> Edward Diener wrote:
>>
>> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>> > What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part)
>> > being integrated into the next C++ Standard?
>> >
>> > I keep getting asked the question, and wondered if any consensus had
>> > emerged among C++ standardizers.
>>
>> Some of the Boost libraries have already been accepted into the next C++
>> standard.
>
> Nothing has been accepted into the next standard. Some of the Boost
> librarys have been accepted for TR1, which is a technical report. The
> ISO web site describes a technical report as "An informative document
> containing information of a different kind from that normally published
> in a normative document." It's not a standard, and it isn't a commitment
> to what will go in any subsequent standard.

I am getting the impression that we can say 3 things about the library
    TR:

    (a) It is informative.
    (b) It is not the standard.
    (c) It is produced by many of the same people who are on the
        standards committee.

Correct?

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part) being
integrated into the next C++ Standard?

I keep getting asked the question, and wondered if any consensus had
emerged among C++ standardizers.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part)
> being integrated into the next C++ Standard?
>
> I keep getting asked the question, and wondered if any consensus had
> emerged among C++ standardizers.

Some of the Boost libraries have already been accepted into the next C++
standard. I am not sure which ones but one of the leading Boost supporters
and implementors, I believe either David Abrahams or Beman Dawes, had
mentioned in a post on gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel which libraries had been
accepted. I would guess that the information about which libraries had been
accepted would be elsewhere, either the Boost web site somewhere or one of
the C++ standard web sites.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]

Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> What is the likelihood of the Boost libraries (in whole or in part) being
> integrated into the next C++ Standard?
>

Don't know. A fair amount of Boost stuff has been accepted for TR1,
though. One step at a time.

--

Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]