Re: c++ stl
On Feb 18, 9:52 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pete Becker wrote:
MiB is correct, but note that many people use "STL" to refer
to the C++ STandard Library.
The C++ standard library encompasses a bit more components
than the STL[1]. If "many people" refer to the C++'s standard
library as "STL" then "many people" are making a mistake.
The C++ standard library is largely a "template" library. And
if a library is "standard", and it is "template", how can
calling it a "standard template library" be a mistake. (One
could argue that calling Stepanov's library a "standard template
library" is misleading advertising, because it certainly wasn't
"standard". At least in the sense that ISO uses "standard".)
The actual meaning of a word depends on common usage, which
means that in this regard, "most people" can never be wrong, In
practice, the usage that I've seen most frequently (but far from
exclusively) would use STL for the parts of Stepanov's library
that were adopted by ISO (but not the other parts), plus
elements of the C++ standard library, like std::basic_string,
which have been STLized. Although the limits are not precise,
this would exclude things like iostream and operator new, but
include basic_string, and perhaps other elements, that weren't
in Stepanov's library. But as I say, the limits are not
precise, and not a few people would include the entire standard
C++ library. If you need to be precise, I'd avoid the term STL.
--
James Kanze