Peter Dimov wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
The library standard doesn't "work". It can't. It's not code. The standard doesn't include an implemenation. And once we have a reference implementation which can be compiled on a language conformant compiler, what is gained from the work required to add it to the standard?
Wider audience,
perhaps. Actually, I see this as the only real benefit. Instead of "wider audience" I would call it something like of "imprimateur of people who know what they are doing". That is, being accepted into the standard make it "acceptable" to use. Its sort of a "certification". But since it doesn't include implementation, the certification has to be limited. Of course I feel confident in making my own decision as to whether a particular library is a good candidate for use - but I don't work for a larger organization which may really need this kind of thing. Still its an awfully expensive "seal of approval".
multiple competing implementations, availability.
The existance of a the standard doesn't affect these. Remember, I'm presuming the existence of a free, conforming C++ implementation of the library in question.
You can depend on the standard library being available for use
Remember, I'm presuming the existence of a free, conforming C++ implementation of the library in question.
even if for administrative/legal/whatever reasons no third party code is allowed on a project.
It was precisely the posting of a question regarding this which clarified the question in my own mind. The existence of a standard in no way effects the "third party" status of any particular implmentation. Note that all the compilers we currently use are shipping with "third party" library implementions. (hmm maybe g++ doesn't fit here - but then its not even clear who the "first party" is here). Of course, this fact has to be kept a secret from the legal community. Robert Ramey