[aDevilInMe]

<StlIsTheWrongName>If writing "modern C++", why do you want to use a really old library, STL, why not instead use the "Standard Library"? </StlIsTheWrongName>

[StephanTLavavej]

As an STL maintainer, I can say that using "STL" to refer to "the C++ Standard Library" is a perfectly valid use of metonymy.

[aDevilInMe]

Do 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]

No, 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.

[pjmlp]

Because 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.

[eliasdaler]

"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.

[pandaman]

I agree, I call it STD myself because of the namespace's name and the apt connotation.

[ocornut]

Software Transmitted Disease