man

[Farkas Levente]

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 ?

 -- Levente
 "The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
  ruining the bliss of ignorance."