4 ms·
<StlIsTheWrongName>If writing "modern C++", why do you want to use a really old library, STL, why not instead use the "Standard Library"? </StlIsTheWrongName>
by aDevilInMe 10y ago
<StlIsTheWrongName>If writing "modern C++", why do you want to use a really old library, STL, why not instead use the "Standard Library"? </StlIsTheWrongName>
- eliasdaler 10y ago"Standard Library" sounds better and I'll probably use it instead of "STL" in the future, but I'm not sure that "STL" is not used anymore or have been discarded.
- pjmlp 10y agoBecause for those of us that started using C++ when C++ ARM was the only reference to it, the STL is a synonym of Standard Library.
- pandaman 10y agoI agree, I call it STD myself because of the namespace's name and the apt connotation.
- ocornut 10y agoSoftware Transmitted Disease
- StephanTLavavej 10y agoAs an STL maintainer, I can say that using "STL" to refer to "the C++ Standard Library" is a perfectly valid use of metonymy.
- aDevilInMe 10y agoDo you not maintain threads, RegEx etc... ? At best STL can be reffered to as a subset of the Standard Library, which contains the algorithms and containers framework. I take Stroustrup's word over a maintainer with the intials STL, who has an interest to keep calling it by this name.
- to3m 10y agoNo, the STL doesn't exist any more, at least as a going concern. That's why it's metonymy. It sounds like you're thinking of synecdoche.