Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

> By the way, C++ cognoscenti are addressing similar library issues.
> The complaints are the same - we need more libraries because
> (insert: Java, C#, Windows, etc.) has them and we're falling behind,
> and trying to get them into the standard is too slow.
>
> There's already a central site which is focusing on being the place
> where proposed libraries live, <http://www.boost.org/>. It might be
> fruitful to read through it to see how their policies work.
>

I just took a look at it, and I'd say you're right, it's worth looking into.
Mix in Ada Style And quality for coding style, create our own hierarchy of
libraries because their idea is pretty good, I for one would use a different
"classification" approach to the library, one that reflects the Ada Style
and quality.  But as far as processes go (reviewing of libraries, different
steps to get a idea into a usabe/reusable stable library state) their
approach seems pretty good.  Perhaps we can borrow a few tips and tricks.

As for how I'd see the "classification" process?  As I mentionned
previously, somewhat of a taxonomy chart of libraries (which could and would
represent object dependancies, agretations, containments within each other)
would be good in my book.  As a basis of course, the means to search the
hierarchy could be from anything to anything as in, keyword searches,
library type search, named searches, anything at all.  and those search
mechanisms could grow as we find ways to search "intelligently" through the
hierarchy or get demands to search by this or that criteria.

-- 
St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com