Ted wrote:
>Honestly I think at this point growth of the C++ standard library is an
>anti-feature. The committee should figure out how to get modules specified
>(which I understand is a difficult thing, I'm not trying to minimize the
>work there) so that tooling can be built to provide a first-class module
>ecosystem for C++ like Rust and other languages have. The language should
>provide a better means for extensibility and code reuse so that the
>standard library doesn't have to solve everyone's problems.

(and various others wrote things along the same lines, or similar

I'm strongly in agreement.  This is not going to help people in the long
run, and may well be as Ted puts it an anti-feature that causes all
sorts of problems we've chipped away at to re-rear their heads (ossified
unsafe impls, lack of any improvements, etc).

A good module system is a much more useful and liberating thing to do.

Randell Jesup, Mozilla Corp
remove "news" for personal email
dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to