It seems like the only thing "S" about "STL" is the specification, not in implementation -- this is why you have hell-on-earth like STLport. Or, people throwing in the kitchen sink (!) and using a monstrosity like Boost. (Seriously, there are whole operating systems that aren't as enormous as Boost ...)
I know this doesn't answer your question, but I just had to get it off my chest. Sorry. On 7/24/10 8:44 PM, Alan M. Carroll wrote: > Is it an official policy to not use STL, or is that just a legacy of ATS's C > heritage? -- Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
