Re: [Scope] Peer review conclusion

From: Дмитрий Архипов (grisumbras_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-01-16 11:51:47

вт, 16 янв. 2024 г. в 00:12, Andrey Semashev via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
>
> As a potential option, we could split the library in two git modules,
> one with scope guards and another one with unique_resource. This would
> count as two libraries, so I'm not sure if this would be an acceptable
> result of the review, but if people want this, I wouldn't mind.
>
> Dmitry, please let me know if this is desired, so that I make the split.
> Name suggestions are also welcome.

No, I did not make that a condition to acceptance. But if you feel
like this is necessary,
you of course are free to do that. Although, I would think, this would
require a separate
formal review for a new library.

Just to reiterate, here's my reasoning for not making this a
condition. While some people
wanted unique_resource out, everyone remarked that it is useful. Some
people also
remarked that potentially a better API is possible. In my opinion,
having a useful
unique_resource in Scope does not prevent a better unique_resource in
a different library
later. One could argue, it would even be increase the chances of that,
because real life
experience can be gathered. And finally, while everyone likes lean
libraries, in my
experience most C++ users do not like micro libraries, because
managing dependencies
is not trivial.