Andrew Fitzgibbon <awf@robots.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:nziu7wfr49.fsf@volumnia.robots...
> I like SCL (Standard C++ Library)

What about SCPPL?

Can then be pronounced or corrupted into:

    SKIPPLE

or even

    Schipol

or even

    Ski Pole
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

I like SCL (Standard C++ Library)

--
Andrew Fitzgibbon,                                        awf@robots.ox.ac.uk
Robotics Research Group, University of Oxford                +44 01865 273127
            <a href=http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~awf> Home Page </a>
                         "Never say there is no way"
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <vUa73.43330$OL.828920@newscene.newscene.com> "Al Stevens" <alstevens@midifitz.com> writes:
>However, the generic names, EH, templates, RTTI, namespaces, locales,
>iostreams, and so on, do not contain the same potential for confusion that
>"STL" has. At least two posters here have suggested that STL might mean the
>complete standard library to some people.

The term STL is probably not going to go away, so whatever complementing
narrative you can provide the author in reviewing the book would be useful.

Although it's unfortunate that the etymology is showing some distortion,
what matters when all is said and done is the techniques and capabilities
available.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
     Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release!  We now do Windows too.
    Email: comeau@comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
                *** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

>Does it need a distinct name?

Here's why it came up. In discussing a revision to a C++ book with its
author and the publisher, I pointed out that a chapter on STL might be
ill-titled since the code that we once called STL is not identified as such
in the standard. I suggested that standard containers, iterators, and
algorithms might be more appropriate so that the book, which is represented
as teaching the standard language, would seem to be more contemporary and
not subject to criticism by industry experts. The author was agreeable, but
the publisher worried that less well-informed reviewers might fault the book
for not addressing STL specifically and give the wrong impression about the
book's coverage.

(Publishers get all the books on the subject, read the tables of contents,
and then challenge authors as to why they don't discuss things that other
authors discuss.)

Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the classes
in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as Template
functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition encompasses
much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and algorithms
from the original HP library.

I posted the question here because I see STL mentioned frequently by
participants. I guess I wonder, do you folks still think of those three
libraries when you hear "STL?" Inasmuch as the committee did not use the
name in the document, is its use now deprecated in your thoughts?
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Al Stevens wrote:
....
> Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the classes
> in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as Template
> functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition encompasses
> much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and algorithms
> from the original HP library.
>
> I posted the question here because I see STL mentioned frequently by
> participants. I guess I wonder, do you folks still think of those three
> libraries when you hear "STL?" Inasmuch as the committee did not use the
> name in the document, is its use now deprecated in your thoughts?

It is far more likely to be misused than forgotten. I originally thought
that the acronym STL covered all parts of the Standard Library that used
Templates. Having gained a better historical perspective, I now try to
remember to restrict myself to using it for the
containers/iterators/allocators/algorithms/functions part of the
library. Together they form a set that was obviously designed to work
together, with a common design philosophy. That the interfaces have
changed somewhat from the original design doesn't justify changing the
name.
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Al Stevens wrote:

[snip]

> Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the classes
> in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as Template
> functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition encompasses
> much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and algorithms
> from the original HP library.

The definition of C++ encompasses much more than what was in the original
 language by Stroustrup as well.  It seems to me that in a context where C++
has meaning, STL would similarly have meaning, as would C and SQL, though
the meanings of all these terms have been transformed through evolution.

[snip]
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <375BBF6C.6C64909C@wizard.net>,
  James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> wrote:
> Al Stevens wrote:
> ....
> > Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the
classes
> > in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as
Template
> > functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition
encompasses
> > much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and
algorithms
> > from the original HP library.
> >
> > I posted the question here because I see STL mentioned frequently by
> > participants. I guess I wonder, do you folks still think of those
three
> > libraries when you hear "STL?" Inasmuch as the committee did not
use the
> > name in the document, is its use now deprecated in your thoughts?
>
> It is far more likely to be misused than forgotten. I originally
thought
> that the acronym STL covered all parts of the Standard Library that
used
> Templates. Having gained a better historical perspective, I now try to
> remember to restrict myself to using it for the
> containers/iterators/allocators/algorithms/functions part of the
> library.

Even this is not accurate.  The iostream libraries are templates, can
act as containers, and even have their own iterators.  Yet these
classes never were a part of what was originally the STL, and I think
few folks even today (i.e. those that would still use the term STL to
pertain to any of the standard library) would put them in that group.
basic_string also falls into this category, somewhat.

> Together they form a set that was obviously designed to work
> together, with a common design philosophy. That the interfaces have
> changed somewhat from the original design doesn't justify changing the
> name.

Why not?  The standard library has out grown the original concept of
the STL.  Further, since the STL library still exists, and does not
necessarily follow the standard, I see a need for different
nomenclature.  Personally, I don't know why one would want to discuss
these classes in a context seperate from the rest of the standard
library, so I prefer to just use STD for the name of the whole lot.  If
one were to insist on seperating them, I'd stick with the suggested
containers, iterators and algorithms (and would probably also give
credence to adapters).


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Aubrey Soper wrote:
>
> Al Stevens wrote:

> > Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the classes
> > in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as Template
> > functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition encompasses
> > much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and algorithms
> > from the original HP library.

> The definition of C++ encompasses much more than what was in the original
> language by Stroustrup as well.  It seems to me that in a context where C++
> has meaning, STL would similarly have meaning, as would C and SQL, though
> the meanings of all these terms have been transformed through evolution.

That's exactly Al Steven's point. The scope of standard and template
and library is larger but, again, STL refers to Containers, Iterators,
Algorithms, Allocators, Adaptators, Functors, not to the whole templated
standard library.

To me STL includes hash_xxx classes, even if they aren't standard.

--

Valentin Bonnard


[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Aubrey Soper wrote in message <375D03CB.23A97D1F@worldnet.att.net>...
>Al Stevens wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Standard Template Library is a troublesome name because most of the
classes
>> in the standard library are Standard (of course), implemented as Template
>> functions and classes, and are in Libraries. That definition encompasses
>> much more than the original set of containers, iterators, and algorithms
>> from the original HP library.
>
>The definition of C++ encompasses much more than what was in the original
> language by Stroustrup as well.  It seems to me that in a context where
C++
>has meaning, STL would similarly have meaning, as would C and SQL, though
>the meanings of all these terms have been transformed through evolution.
>
>[snip]

However, the generic names, EH, templates, RTTI, namespaces, locales,
iostreams, and so on, do not contain the same potential for confusion that
"STL" has. At least two posters here have suggested that STL might mean the
complete standard library to some people.
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Al Stevens wrote:
>
> A search of the standard document finds no uses of the acronym STL or the
> phrase "standard template library." The things that we used to call STL are
> now distributed in the table of contents among several libraries. Yet many
> participants here still say, "STL."
>
> With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
> nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL? Or is
> it still OK to call it the STL?

I still refer to it as STL, but there is, unfortunately, a growing
number of people who think that "STL" means "STandard Library."

--
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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <nbl53.38828$9w1.1156213@newscene.newscene.com>,
alstevens@midifitz.com says...

[ ... ]

> With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
> nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL? Or is
> it still OK to call it the STL?

It appears to me that almost no two people entirely agree upon what
STL does or should refer to -- possibilities I've seen used include:

1) the original STL proposal.
2) the original implementation.
3) the containers, iterators and algorithms in the standard library.
4) anything templated in the standard library.
5) the entire standard library.
6) the current implementation available from SGI.

I believe the single most common reference to "STL" I've seen on the
newsgroups is "STL string"; in at least some cases, the "STL" seems to
be simply referring to the std::string class, but in others appears to
refer to something different than any of the above...

In the end, I believe it's best to be fairly explicit in the
terminology: if you're referring to algorithms and iterators, it's
rarely onerous to say so specifically.


[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <nbl53.38828$9w1.1156213@newscene.newscene.com>,
Al Stevens <alstevens@midifitz.com> wrote:
>With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
>nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL? Or is
>it still OK to call it the STL?

Does it need a distinct name?  It's just part of standard C++, not
something new that's been tacked on like it used to be when the ARM was the
standard reference.  Does any other group of C++ language features have a
name?

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Pete Becker <petebecker@acm.org> wrote:

: Al Stevens wrote:

: > With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
: > nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL?
: > Or is it still OK to call it the STL?

: I still refer to it as STL, but there is, unfortunately, a growing
: number of people who think that "STL" means "STandard Library."

How about Containers Iterators and Algorithms?  Of course, smaller
parts of what was once STL are elsewhere and the acronym may have
some undesirable conotations :)

John
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <F1D53.42431$9w1.1304647@newscene.newscene.com>,
John Potter <jpotter@falcon.lhup.edu> wrote:
> Pete Becker <petebecker@acm.org> wrote:

> : I still refer to it as STL, but there is, unfortunately, a growing
> : number of people who think that "STL" means "STandard Library."

> How about Containers Iterators and Algorithms?  Of course, smaller
> parts of what was once STL are elsewhere and the acronym may have
> some undesirable conotations :)

What is undesirable about the Culinary Institute of America?
--
    Andrew Koenig
    ark@research.att.com
    http://www.research.att.com/info/ark



[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> Does it need a distinct name?  It's just part of standard C++, not
> something new that's been tacked on like it used to be when the ARM was the
> standard reference.  Does any other group of C++ language features have a
> name?
>

Sure: streams, new-style casts, templates, EH, ...

--
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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <38z53.258$KM3.89748@burlma1-snr2> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>Does it need a distinct name?  It's just part of standard C++, not
>something new that's been tacked on like it used to be when the ARM was the
>standard reference.

Things were never "tacked on."  Saying there were does not make it so.

>Does any other group of C++ language features have a name?

Why is this a problem?  Just about every feature and library routines of
every language I've seen is categorized in at least one grouping.
Why should C++ be any different?  I think that it would be pretty poor
to present that standard library in say alphabetical order, with no other
order or cross-referencing.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
     Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release!  We now do Windows too.
    Email: comeau@comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
                *** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

In article <nbl53.38828$9w1.1156213@newscene.newscene.com> "Al Stevens" <alstevens@midifitz.com> writes:
>A search of the standard document finds no uses of the acronym STL or the
>phrase "standard template library." The things that we used to call STL are
>now distributed in the table of contents among several libraries. Yet many
>participants here still say, "STL."
>
>With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
>nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL? Or is
>it still OK to call it the STL?

I've heard some folks argue that there never was anything truly called STL.
Taken formally, this is so, there never was anything truly officially called
STL. Taken from at least a practical viewpoint, I disagree.  Usually it is
considered the containers templates and associated templates et al with them.
Of course, they have changed since the original proposal.  Early on STL
still referred to those parts, but these days it's kinda taken on a life
of it's own.  When I use the term STL, I intent it to mean the generic
data structures (list, vector, map, set, etc) and algorithms used with them
provided by the standard.  This can appear confusing when you then look at
strings (and wonder why they are any different), and then traits, and so why
not iostreams's too (since lots is templates now), and so on.  So some
current uses of STL are beginning to look like "typedefs" :) for SL
(Standard Library) these days.

- Greg
--
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
     Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release!  We now do Windows too.
    Email: comeau@comeaucomputing.com / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
                *** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]

A search of the standard document finds no uses of the acronym STL or the
phrase "standard template library." The things that we used to call STL are
now distributed in the table of contents among several libraries. Yet many
participants here still say, "STL."

With the publication of the approved standard is there a more correct
nomenclature for the set of template libraries used to be called STL? Or is
it still OK to call it the STL?
---
[ 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://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]