Re: C++ Standardization of intervals Herve Bronnimann  writes: | On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:11:45AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | I think Boost intervals might be incorporated into C++ Ox,  | >  | > I hope Herv? and Sylvain will post a report of the last C++ committee | > meeting to this list (I wasn't in the library room when it was | > discussed). |  | Of course, Gaby is right. The fact that we presented a proposal to the | ISO C++ Committee and that the proposal wasn't outright rejected, does | not mean it is accepted. In any case, it is not targeted at C++0x, but | only at the Technical Report TR2 (if you don't understand these | subtleties, don't worry). There will be more revisions and presentations | to the committe before we know either way. |  | What can be said for now, is that besides the technical issues (which | appear to be not too hard to resolve) the main obstacle seems to | establish a broad user base of customers.  In a nutshell, C++ library | vendors want to know that their efforts will be rewarded (commercially | speaking), and this is their entire right. They are committed to | providing an implementation of the C++ standard, it is costly for them | (esp. the transcendental math functions on intervals), so they want to | see a potential return before they would approve. Thanks for the update, HervÃ©.   Speaking of the return, I would think it is not just in terms of money -- of course, they want to make money :-)  I guess, they want to have some assurance that the ratio cost/benefit worths it, and this is not just something for a very small and specialized community (it will have to be distributed with every C++ implementation) but actually makes a difference with respect to robust programs and libraries using hat technology.  So, any evidence that the proposed library is very useful for a broader community -- for example with examples to applications using it -- will be very helpful. (That is the flip side of a volunteer project, people worry about the  cost/benefit). -- Gaby