Re: C++ 0x size and complexity
Jeff Schwab <email@example.com> writes:
Bjarne was said only that webbish libraries should be made available,
not that they should be included in the standard library.
I was aware of this, but ignored it for the dramatic effect.
HTTP/1.1 403 Access Denied.
Sorry. I have some settings in effect that should exclude
bots, but sometimes also exclude human readers. So, when I
post a URI, I add it to a special list, to temporarily
allow access by nearly everyone:
SetEnvIf request_uri "standard_extensions_en$" alow_all=1
I do not know why you still get ?403?, so I copy the text of
the page here (The rest of this post is a fullquote of this page):
Suggestion for C++ Standard Extension Library
?We need C++ libraries for doing "Webbish" things.?
The C++ -standard library does not contain means to get
the resource of a URI. One of the reasons for this might
be that it is not possible to implement such a feature
under every environment. However, the lack of
standardization in this regard means that multiple
solutions with incompatible interfaces will be developed
for this purpose and C++ source code will have to take
care for multiple interfaces if it is intended for
Therefore, it is suggested to add standard extension
library specifications to the C++ specification, which
describe the interfaces of extension libraries. These
libraries do not have to be part of a C++ implementation,
but a C++ implementation might support a library extension
and if its description claims to support the extension
library, then this extension library has to comply with
the specified interface. For example, a library to obtain
resources via a network might be specified as "ISO C++
Network Resource Extension Library Specification 1.0".
A producer of C++-implementations then might claim that
his product supports the "ISO C++ Network Resource
Extension Library Specification 1.0". A C++-program
might be written that requires this extension. Such a
program will not be portable among all conforming hosted
implementations, but among all implementations supporting
this standard library extension.
A set of extension library specifications might be
specified as "Standard Library Extension Set, Level 1
(2005)" to contain standard library extensions with
features available under many environments, like a console
library with the ability to detect key-press-events or a
network library. A higher level extension set might
contain a GUI library. Profiles for certain types of
devices, like "Desktop Internet PC Standard Library
Extension Set" are also possible. C++ already has two
such "library levels" now, namely, the freestanding and
the hosted implementations.
Such extension libraries specifications should be
documents separated from the C++ standard, so that the
core language can be kept relatively small. In a very wide
sense the goal of this suggestion is to create something
like CPAN for C++, but while CPAN is a collection of
implementations the suggested extension library
specifications would only specify interfaces. Programmers
then can bind their software to these interfaces while
implementations might be available as part of C++
-implementations or as separate units.
J16/01-0028 = WG21 N1314
After writing the above suggestion, I became aware that
parts of it already are shared by the library WG of
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21, the international standardization
working group for the programming language C++. The
document "J16/01-0028 = WG21 N1314" contains the following
?Library extensions will be considered even if they
cannot be implemented on every platform. For example:
there are platforms that can support a hosted C++
implementation, but that do not support threads or network
communication. Libraries for networking and multithreading
will be considered, even though they can't be implemented
on such platform.?
J16/01-0028 = WG21 N1314, as of 2001-05-17
Lack of Portable Libraries Reported
The Journal COTS reports that the military migrates away
from Ada towards Java. The portable libraries of Java are
recognized as an edge over C++.
?Another advantage Java offers is a broad selection of
standard, portable and scalable libraries. That's where
it has an edge over C++. While C++ has some good
libraries, they're not portable?one set of libraries is
needed with Windows, a different set is needed for
Solaris, and yet another for Linux.?