Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] non-interface-related concerns
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-28 19:56:38
> > Although it's implicit in my comments, I'll be explicit about my
> > suggestion:
> > a) submit outcome in a way that looks like the rest of boost libraries
> > so it would be evaluated by the same criteria that other boost libraries
> > are.
> As Jon Kalb mentioned during CppChat only yesterday, there has been a
> wholesale move away from libraries entering monolithic collections like
> Boost in favour of people's own github repos where few end users find
> them. And that has been a negative thing with regard to WG21
> As I hinted at strongly in my technical description of boost-lite,
> what's coming next is that libraries will join **multiple** collections
> of standards aspiring C++ libraries. There are already mini-Boost's
> popping up, most of them are individual github collections, but it won't
> be long now - thanks to git and git submodules - that a C++ library will
> become part of many collections simultaneously. All my libraries have
> been written to be good neighbours to any other C++, and to be highly
> flexible for end use cases. It's a huge value add for the burgeoning
> ecosystem of next generation C++ libraries.
It's just funny to see how you advertise your library to be a good citizen
to be used by many others but at the same time you claim that Boost itself
is a bad citizen as parts of it are used by other libraries...
But I got it: you're the only person on this world who really understands
what C++ developers want and how irrational everybody is who is not seeing
things your way.
As I said already: good luck, and I may add good riddance.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk