C++ Logo


Advanced search

How about a committee library as well as a standard library? (was Fwd: Distributed random number ordering)

From: Guy Cpp <guy.cpp.wg21_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 11:59:48 +0100
Not everything needs to go in the standard library. Discovery is a problem
though. Why doesn't the committee host a library of useful things?

Please offer your objections or support below.


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Guy Cpp <guy.cpp.wg21_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 at 08:31
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Distributed random number ordering
To: <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>

You know, we ALREADY HAVE https://github.com/cplusplus for committee
matters. I've just looked through the 23 repositories there and as far as I
can see only two have ANY C++ at all in them, lib-issues-software and LWG,
and LWG seems to be a fork of lib-issues-software.

What do I have to do to create a repository with some ACTUAL C++ in it,
blessed by the committee, to resolve exactly this situation? Form a new
study group which targets the committee library rather than the
international standard? Could this seed the standard package manager that
is just over the horizon? Would Compiler Explorer integration be useful?

Maybe I should just write a proposal.


On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 23:15, Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 5:51 PM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:30 PM Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On the flip side mandating the algorithms also closes off further
>> optimization opportunities from implementations. Also I wouldn't say that
>> there are obvious algorithms to standardize even for discrete distributions.
>> >
>> > What comes to mind is adding an optional template parameter for
>> distributions specifying a specific algorithm while having an
>> implementation defined default.
>> No, no "optional template parameters". I don't want to have to write
>> `uniform_int_distribution<int, std::stable_distribution>`. I want to
>> write `stable_uniform_int_distribution`, without having to specify the
>> default type. And I imagine that implementation-wise, it's easier to
>> just make a new type than to make a specialization, though this
>> distinction is a bit trivial.
> Even better: Get the source code of `stable_uniform_int_distribution` from
> a third-party GitHub repository, where if you ever do discover that the
> behavior differs across platforms, you can just file a bug and it's clearly
> on them to fix it. If you rely on the Standard Library for this stuff, then
> you have nowhere (or rather, five or six places) to file bug reports when
> it doesn't work.
> I see many reasons this should be on GitHub, and no reason this should be
> in the Standard Library. (At least not for the computationally difficult
> distributions with floating-point dependencies, like `normal_distribution`.
> For `uniform_int_distribution` specifically, the Standard probably
> *should* just mandate the algorithm, because it's relatively trivial.)
> –Arthur
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

Received on 2021-05-14 06:00:08