From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-29 18:40:35
Phil Endecott wrote:
> I am a bit concerned that the nature of the Boost process could lead to
> a sort of "design by committee". If I were to resist all suggestions
> for "feature creep", would I eventually find my offering rejected for
> "lack of features"? Would only a "bloated" library be accepted?
I think you have nothing to fear. I can't think of a Boost library where only
a 'bloated library' would be accepted. As a general rule when I've been a
review manager I would only consider a it 'doesn't do this use case' as vital
if it's so central that the library interface would really be incomplete or
broken without it. So, as long as the library is useful to many without a
particular feature one 'it doesn't do this' doesn't do xyz' isn't usually
critical to rejecting a library me. If lots of people are in agreement than
it's harder to ignore. Of course review managers are people making judgments,
so your mileage may vary.
Anyway, you're free to *not include* features that you don't think are
important to the core mission of the library. The hard thing is if lots of
other people think it's important and you don't.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk