From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 23:48:01
Beth Jacobson writes:
> I think this categorization is the best I've seen so far (mine
> included). I'd like to see no more than 7-8 major categories though, to
> make the list seem more accessable and browsable.
Seems like an arbitrary limit to me.
> How about if we
> grouped some of your categories like this:
>>
> ** Language Enhancements (change the one below to "C++ Core Enhancements")
>> * Language Enhancements - libraries that make the standard C++ core
>> language easier and safer to use, or extend its capabilities in
>> "language-like" ways. Many relieve common frustrations of
>> programmers with the C++ language.
>>
>> Datatypes: variant, optional/in-place-factories, tribool, integer
>>
>> Language extensions: foreach, enable_if, parameter, ref
>>
>> Safety: conversion, value_initialized, checked_delete,
>>
>> * Standard Library Enhancements - libraries that make the standard C++
>> library easier and safer to use or extend its capabilities in
>> evolutionary ways. Many relieve frustrations commonly encountered
>> when using the standard library (see also Functional Programming)
>>
>> IO: io state saver, iostreams, format
>>
>> Containers/data structures:
>> assign, pointer container, array, bitset, multi_index,
>> multi-array, tuple
>>
>> Iterators: iterators, next/prior, range
>>
>> Algorithms: minmax
>>
How does adding a level of hierarchy make things "more accessible"?
For me, it's quite the opposite: it increases chances that I'll have
to browse through insides of several categories because the top-level
names are so generic that the library I'm looking for could be in half
of them.
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering