Jeff Garland wrote:
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.
I heavily agree on this last remark. Mr. Ramey has done a fantastic job with serialization, even with some really broken compilers, and it works very well with largely conforming C++ compilers. C++ really needs a standard serialization library, especially because IMO serialization is an absolute necessity of C++ RAD programming environments, and I hope to see many more C++ IDE's supporting RAD programming in the future once all the pieces are in place for doing it purely with standard C++.