"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message news:20050424184116.M16781@crystalclearsoftware.com... | On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:43:31 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote | > | Agree on this too. | > | | > | Should we be considering some of the new collection types: | > circular_buffer, | mutli_array, multi_index, ptr_containers? | > | > I asked abuot ptr_containers and the answer was "not yet". | | Hmm, not sure what to make of that. I guess one of the interesting questions | moving forward is 'when being in boost is enough'. Practically speaking it's | clear that some things in boost will probably never make it into the standard, | but it doesn't matter that much because they are available for all. | Boost.graph appears to be in that category -- widely used, but probably | doesn't need to be in the standard. For example, maybe there's no real | advantage in trying to get standardized xml processing capabilities -- it's | too big and there plenty of them out there for free. So the market is already | saturated and adding the stamp of the standard isn't helpful. Well, I think it is a good thing that the committee is acting more focused so that its time is spend on libraries that can benefit as many users as possible. | > | Or are the uses too esoteric for | > | standarization? | > | > probably. I wouldn't write any proposal before hearing what the | > committee thinks; In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart | > pointer and it should never have gotten that far; I mean, David H. | > spent a lot of time writing the proposal and that time could have | > been saved. | | That's too bad. I really hope this doesn't mean that David is going to stop | working on the library.... I hope that too; the thing is that getting it into boost is also an important goal; we simply can't put everything in the standard. -Thorsten