home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: jdmorris@ix.netcom.com (Jason D. Morris)
- Message-ID: <314b1ed5.6698031@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
- X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 20:06:49 GMT
- Path: in2.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 17 Mar 96 03:55:58 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Return-Path: <daemon@meeker.UCAR.EDU>
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Conforming compilers should compile STL?
- Organization: Netcom
- References: <199603151701.LAA06783@frodo.pswtech.com> <Pine.A32.3.91.960315223344.90639A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il> <4iekv2$jbi@nuacht.iol.ie>
- X-Netcom-Date: Sat Mar 16 12:06:01 PM PST 1996
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMUuNXOEDnX0m9pzZAQG6LgF+Id8ZSnFAEJHzi9/DkgBPCIk9bhz6sltv
- 2OJvFthQwLLdHwoR89vPbnL96z+iuggQ
- =2laT
-
- On 16 Mar 96 16:09:58 GMT, David Byrden <goyra@iol.ie> wrote:
-
- >>> This I can understand. But isn't the standard going to include an
- >>> implementation of the STL?
- >
- > Why should it? The whole point of programming languages is that you can
- >specify an interface which can be met by many possible implementations.
- >
-
- Except for one minor detail. The draft standard also specifies
- *performance* requirements for the algorithms and containers in the
- STL. So, while not explicitly specifying an implementation, an
- implementor's hand will be somewhat forced in terms of choosing an
- implementation that meets the performance specs.
-
- Jason
- ---
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ]
- [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
- [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
- [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
- [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]
-