--- David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Toon Knapen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Long time ago I inquired if it would be a good idea to provide STL > extensions > > in boost that are not implemented by all STL's. IIRC David A responded that > > > boost/compatibility was intended for this. > > That sort of surprises me. I think they should go in boost, for sure, > but I thought the compatibility library was about fixing broken > std library implementations. This is really Ralf's bailiwick, though. > Ralf?
My contribution to the compatibility library focuses completely on providing the C++ C headers (such as <cstdio>) on a couple of platforms. The intent was to make a compiler/library appear as std-conformant as possible, but in a lightweight fashion (I had some difficulties using STLport). I don't really have an opinion regarding Toon's proposal, but my gut feeling is that compatibility with the ISO standard is very different from compatibility with someone's extensions. Maybe something like "extension adaptor" library is more appropriate? Ralf __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
