> I think that would be most unproductive and misguided. Maybe I should step back and restate my original desires.
I don't want us to move *too quickly* towards an all-STL implementation, and end up with a hairy mess that's hard to understand. I've had to debug our STL implementation before, it's not easy for someone not used to the design. I agree that NIH is bad. But I also think mega-patches that do nothing but replace a huge chunk of existing (working!) code with a hugely complex interaction of every STL class known to science, is equally bad. I request moderation, not abstinence. One approach to such a goal is to require that a migration limit itself to replacing one aspect of the implementation *at a time*, get that reviewed, applied, and understood, *then* migrate the next aspect, etc. Replace VEC with the STL vector class, but keep everything else around it the same. Get it reviewed. Then replace another piece and get it done. Then another, and another, etc. I also think that we'll have enough things to worry about just by switching compilers, without adding the risks associated with replacing working code. One step at a time :-)