This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
- To: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Subject: Re: man
- From: Farkas Levente <lfarkas at mindmaker dot hu>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:27:52 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: libstdc++ at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Phil Edwards wrote:
> > this's not a real reason, since the same thing have to do with the library
> > itself:-)
> Not really. We provide to the end user a set of headers with declarations
> and a compiled library containing the definitions. The SGI implementation
> is entirely a set of headers. It's pretty easy to tell when somebody
> is using (for example) the SGI version but complaining to the GCC lists.
> It rarely happens. Documentation is not so self-identifying.
I mean stdc++'s used to integrate sgi's patch (like in this week
auto_ptr), so we have to applay sgi's diff (or we can make the diff of
sgi's doc and patch with that) our doc.
> > no. I expect two things. first something sgi's html pages about the
> > standard library, second the or at least some minimal documentation about
> > the extensions and not just about sgi's extension, but files like
> > type_traits.h
> If people want to read SGI's pages, then they can read SGI's pages.
> They're well written, and -- more to the point -- SGI can keep SGI's
> pages updated better than we can keep SGI's pages updated.
that's way we just need a patch for sgi's doc (which contains all stdc++
extension) and patch with this the sgi's doc.
> > and *concepts* which is not in the standard (yet) but very
> > useful and without any documentation the only way to find this to read
> SGI's concepts checks were added to the library three days ago. I've
> already written up some minimal documentation during lunch. Give us
> some time...
to where ? in which format ?
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."