Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Example 2:
|
| Instead of having ridiculous requirements like 'std::list::splice()
| is O(1)' resulting in 'std::list::size() is O(n)'
|
| { return std::distance(begin(), end()); }
|
| the common case should be optimized.
And the common case it to take its size?
[...]
| Wrt to 'moving the Standard closer to what Qt needs': I guess you
| know the people in the committee good enough to know that any
| proposal coming from the outside is nearly impossible to get considered,
| let alone becoming part of the Standard.
Who is saying that Trolltech has to to this from the outside?
And Trolltech is not big enought to invest a bit to get C++ be more
| Instead we have things like 'main does not need a return' in the
| Standard,
Right.... blame C.
[...]
| [Since we are at it: Right now I consider the Committee rather a threat
| then a boon for the very existance of C++. A glacial progress on
| non-issues, no progress for important issues, and in the meantime
| things like C# get into a shape were they are considered "usable"
| - and pushed as that by the big guns]
Seems that you are not following the latest progress at least.
| > OTOH boost have a pretty good track record in this respect, quite a
| > few of the boost libraries and boost initiated changes will be in the
| > next version of the standard.
|
| There are two things really good in boost: The smart pointers, and
| regexps.
And both of those will be in the new standard.
[...]
--
Lgb
