Re: c++ stl
On Feb 19, 3:33 pm, "osmium" <r124c4u...@comcast.net> wrote:
"MiB" wrote:
Congratulations, folks. It took only three posts in this thread (OP,
my answer, and the riposte) to bazooka a beginner's request for
pointers to study material into a completely pointless vivisection of
the three letter acronym STL.
:-)
Ah, yes, a very familiar problem.. But I looked back at the original post
and it says:
" ... but i actully dont know what stl really is (?)"
I find it hard to believe that in this day and age anyone would contrive an
acronym where the 'T' came from the word STandard; especially when there
used to be a particular meaning for STL. It would be as though someone came
up with a new language called COBOL. BTW, I think a language with such a
name would be DOA.
The problem is that S does mean "standard", in all of the
accepted interpretations. And the word "standard" is ambiguous;
it can refer to an ISO standard, but it can also mean a de facto
standard, the "standard" way of doing something. One can argue
that Stepanov was a bit pretentious in naming his library, but
if he'd called it Stepanov's Template Library, we'd still be
having the same argument (and he certainly wasn't thinking
standard in terms of ISO when he named it).
As near as I could tell, he wanted a link to an e-book, I
don't know of one. If he is willing to spend a few dollars,
he will not do better than _The C++ Standard Library_ by
Nicolai Josuttis.
Again, it depends on what he actually means by STL. I don't
think one book will do the trick. Josuttis is by far the best
reference for the entire standard library, but if he's really
interested in the ideas behind the part taken from Stepanov
(what most "older" people think of as the STL), then Matt
Austern's _Generic Programming and the STL_ would seem
indicated.
--
James Kanze