🚀 go-pugleaf

In Article 112 rja@edison.cho.ge.com suggests that services which are more
appropriately part of the POSIX IEEE 1003 standard should be left out of
the X3J16 standard.  This is the suggestion the library working group made
to the X3J16 committee -- C++ bindings to other standards should be
considered outside the scope of X3J16.

One reason we are setting a priority on C++/C library compatibility is to
provide access to the existing libraries and standards through already-
developed C bindings.  (Re-use at work ;-)

Two other concerns were
> that we'll end up with more than are really appropriate and ...
> some that aren't as well thought out as they need to be

I don't think the first issue is a problem, given the pace of progress of
standards committees. (1/2 :-)

The second issue is a valid concern.  The goal of the library working group
is to work from existing, proven libraries rather than to invent as part of
the standards effort.  Unfortunately, C++ experience with exceptions and
templates (which both significantly impact library design) is rather scarce
and not widely documented.

I think both of these factors will work to limit the contents of the C++
standard library to elements that are widely regarded as necessary and
helpful.

--
Mike Vilot,  ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
mjv@objects.mv.com  (UUCP:  ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)