Edward Diener wrote:
Is that your argument ?
My argument is really a question: Given a library for which there exists a free reference implmentation in terms of legal C++ language syntax, what value is gained by adding it to some standard? If there value, is it worth the cost? OK two questions. So far, I'm thinking the answers are: very little, and no.
I think that you want the C++ standard committee in b) ii) to provide a reference implementation of the library for all compiler vendors to use.
Actually what I'm thinking is the following. a) Some smart guys creat a library like Regex or a set of libraries like Boost. b) the librar(ies) are free and work with all compilers which correctly implement the C++ language. c) Compiler vendors wanting to sell more programs, Advertise on the box "Compiles all legal C++ programs - including all Boost Libraries" and they spend their efforts fullfiling that claim. d) C++ commitee invests its efforts in clarifying issues which inhibit compiler vendors from fullfilling c). I'm not sure there is a huge argument here. Some compiler vendors are already advertising "boost compatible" on the box. I've noticed at least one poster on the developer's list working to make his companies compiler specifically compliant to be able to build boost and pass all tests. I personally got a call from borland asking me if I wanted any help (Damn - I wish I hadn't thrown away that message!). Adding something to the standard isn't going to change that one way or the other.
I think that you want the C++ standard committee in b) ii) to provide a reference implementation of the library for all compiler vendors to use.
My concern is that the emphasis on making the standard include more and more libraries provides relatively little value in comparison to the effort invest and that resources would be better invested in other areas which I mentioned previously. Robert Ramey