Robert Ramey wrote:
Edward Diener wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
What is the point of having a library standard anyway?
I have always viewed the importance of a library standard as a means of specifying that an implementation which supports the language must provide the library also.
This automatically creates a common set of functionality for all implementations of the language. I view that as a good thing ...
no disagreement there. My question is how to guarentee this. There are at least two options:
a) tweak the library to fit the compiler and meet the standard b) all of the following: i) requiring a language conforming implementation for the library ii) provide a reference implementation of the library.
My view is that the current situation tolerates and perhaps encourages the a) while creating a huge amount of work in creating the standards. I believe that this work would better be invested elsewhere. Like actually bringing the compiler(s) to conformance.
No one is against doing the work of bringing the compiler to conformance, but providing a C++ standard library which works with the compiler is part of that conformance also. Many C++ compilers use a 3rd party C++ standard library, and there is nothing wrong with that. 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. Is that your argument ?