[Effective-cpp] Item 1: Uses and Abuses of vector

[Terje Slettebø]

>From: "Adrian Fagg" <adrianf at evaluategroup.com>

> > [mailto:effective-cpp-bounces at accu.org]On Behalf Of Terje Slettebø
>
> > > I know I'm in a minority here but I don't agree with the
> > consensus that all
> > > future enhancements should be in the standard libraries and
> > not direct
> > > support for e.g. nested functions etc.
> >
> > I didn't know there was consensus about this (and I'd think
> > the core and
> > evolution working groups would be rather surprised by it, as
> > well, since they
> > work on core language changes for C++0x. :) ), and in any
> > case, I'm in violent
> > agreement with you. :)
>
> I recall BS making what seemed to me an intentionally pre-emptive
> pronouncement to the effect that only subtle fixes and tweaks should be
done
> to the core language, around the time the current standard became
official.
> Sorry, I can't find a reference but perhaps someone else here knows?

I also remember this, but I understood it to mean the "stability" periode
following standardisation (and possibly including a DR or two), but not the
next revision of the standard. As he said it at the time, when the standard
was finalised, and someone asked what's next for C++: "Now is the time to
experiment. Things that didn't use to work, now do."

And experimenting we have (ref my postings about lambda, Spirit, concepts,
etc.). :) However, the "stability" periode is over, and preparation for the
next version is in the works. So _now_'s the time to come with proposals for
language enhancements. ;)

We needed that time of stability, for compiler vendors to be able to catch
up, as well as the rest of us. :) I had been doing Java for a while, and
remember coming back to C++ after standardisation, and found it wasn't your
granddaddy's C++, anymore. :) (something made abundantly clear by books like
"Modern C++", and lots of other things, not at least Boost).

Besides catching up, we needed time to - yes - experiment. There was no use
immediately starting to propose new features, before we had found out how
far we could get with the current language definition... We (as a community)
needed to explore, unconstrained by conventionality, and frankly, what we've
found is beyond my dreams at the time...

Ahem, I'll step down from my soapbox, now... :)

> I thought this a great shame at the time and given the lack of any outcry,
> took it that the standards committee and other opinion formers were
broadly
> in agreement with BS.

I think you may have misunderstood the scope of it, but perhaps members of
the committee on this list may fill us in, here.

Regards,

Terje