> Why put this into core C++? Why not leave it to libraries? The standard library is a library :)
One of the biggest criticisms C++ faces is that its standard library is very narrow in scope compared to other languages like Java or C#, and thus programmers often have to turn to third-party libraries to accomplish tasks that one can accomplish "out of the box" in other languages. The Committee is trying to address this criticism by expanding the scope of the standard library. > What happens when there's a better design for an API? Add that to the spec > too? > > Is there a deprecation path for unwanted features? These are great questions! (I don't think they're specific to a graphics API, though.) I think we get some leeway from the fact that major APIs like this aren't being proposed for acceptance directly into the standard itself. Rather, they are being proposed as Technical Specifications (TS), which may or may not make it into the standard at a future time (and in particular, may make it into the standard with significant modifications, without any expectation from implementors to remain backward-compatible to the TS). I'm not sure what the deprecation path is for things in the standard itself. I can ask about this. Cheers, Botond _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
