From: jklowden@speakeasy.net   
      
   On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:24:11 -0800 (PST)   
   "MikeWhy"  wrote:   
      
   > But why, in your fit of enthusiasm, stop with std::vector<>, et al,   
   > when all of C++11 looms not far behind?   
   ....   
   > wonder if you know what you're letting yourself in for,   
      
   Not me, friend.  The OP asked for arguments he might use.  Those I   
   provided and you agreed with.  :-)   
      
   > Can you really just branch the revision, work quietly in your corner,   
   > and then merge it all back at the end?   
      
   I wouldn't think so, no.  Correctly the OP is seeking consensus before   
   undertaking the changes, hoping to enlist their support and   
   cooperation.   
      
   You seem to be saying that 250,000 lines of code relying on any class X   
   can't easily be changed to use class Y, for logistical reasons.  If   
   that were true in general, giant projects couldn't evolve.  If it were   
   true of C and not just C++, the linux kernel (to pick just one example)   
   couldn't undergo the radical change it has in the last 10 years.  If it   
   were true of C++ specifically, there really would be no point in   
   C++11, because it would be suitable only to toy projects and new code.   
      
   Yes, non-functional change for the sake of standardization or library   
   adoption is work.  But it's not particularly hard, let alone   
   impossible, not least because the problem is well specified.   
      
   --jkl   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)