Re: [boost] [review] Outcome Review Report

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Outcome Review Report
From: charleyb123 . (charleyb123_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-06 13:12:59

>
> charleyb123 wrote:
>
>> It is perhaps ironic that the suitability of a proposed library as
>> providing vocabulary types and possibly evolving into a future standard
>> demands that the Library Author change the library’s stated purpose due to
>> this potential popularity;
>
> Peter Dimov respondeth:
>
> The demand in this case was to actually _not_ change the library, as it
> fulfilled the vocabulary role well in its initial, submitted for review,
> design.
>

Fair point.

My intended comment was to suggest that the library's potential popularity
caused, "the bar to be raised" regarding the need for critical API and
design scrutiny, and the need for consensus (whereas a more niche library
would have fewer implied consequences for failing to identify
missed-opportunities).

Thank you (Peter) for your heroic efforts, analysis, and comments in this
review period (they were formative and fundamental to the discussion).

--charley