<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:19 PM Niall Douglas via Boost-users <<a href="mailto:boost-users@lists.boost.org">boost-users@lists.boost.org</a>> wrote:<br>> > Of course WG21 could have simply accepted the library after it went<br>> > through years of development and reviews, rather than trying to "fix"<br>> > it. This is precisely why WG21 should not be involved in innovation and<br>> > design, because then acceptance becomes a matter of opinion and<br>> > politics, rather than a simple acknowledgement of an interface that is<br>> > already successful.<br>><br>> Like Boost, they declare changes which must be made before acceptance.<div><br></div><div>If a library is successful, popular, and its interface hasn't changed for years, it makes no sense to change it and then immediately standardize it.</div><div><br>> >> I'd echo Eric's sentiments on this completely. I don't have it in me to<br>> >> ever get a fundamentals library into Boost again. Besides, I'd likely<br>> >> end up getting divorced and my children no longer speaking to me. It's<br>> >> not worth it, personally speaking.<br>> ><br>> > You leave out the other possibility, to leave the library out of the<br>> > standard, where most libraries, including good libraries, belong.<br>><br>> The same argument would then apply to Boost by this logic. I'm not sure<br>> that I agree with that.</div><div><br></div><div>It absolutely does apply to Boost. To think that it does not is equivalent to thinking that all non-Boost libraries are crap.</div><div><br></div><div>> The usual counterargument to standardising ever more libraries generally<br>> involves a decent centralised package ecosystem for C++, and sure, I get<br>> that that would avoid much over-eager standardisation.</div><div><br></div><div>That's not the argument I'm making. From this point of view, the lack of centralized package ecosystem is not an excuse.</div><div><br></div><div>But maybe all that needs to happen to avoid the obvious problems is slow down the process: put the library in experimental and standardize it only after/if its interface has remained unchanged for several years. Wasn't this what happened with Filesystem anyway?<br></div></div>