On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes@acm.org> wrote in message news:6.0.3.0.2.20050422110501.042b2a20@mailhost.esva.net...
| So far there are plans to propose Boost.Threads, Boost.Filesystem, and | Boost.Signals. As well as proposals for some of the more major libraries, I | personally hope someone will do a sweep through Boost looking at some of | the smaller utilities and helpers for a possible "Small Additions" | proposal.
I believe Alisdair was considering to work on boost.format.
Besides, boost.date_time I think these other libs are good candidates (maybe with slight modifications):
1. conversion 2. optional 3. string algorithms 4. utility
Agree on these.
5. variant
Is variant used widely enough to spend the time to standardize?
6. iostreams
Agree on this too. Should we be considering some of the new collection types: circular_buffer, mutli_array, multi_index, ptr_containers? Or are the uses too esoteric for standarization? What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really important. In the "yet-to-be-developed would use it on almost every major project wish list" (alternatively called the "we should use Java because C++ doesn't have these libs wishlist") --> relational database access --> logging I realize we've had a bunch of discussion here, but i wonder if someone should consider submitting log4cxx from apache http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/. No reason why boost has to the the source of all the good libs ;-) --> number types (unlimited / fixed point) --> process management I realize all this would be a stretch, but I was just reading Bjarne's CUJ musings about how the LWG should be aggressive in standarizing libraries... Jeff