Subject: Re: [boost] Adding polymorphic_value to boost
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-20 20:01:08
On 11/20/17 11:41 AM, Zach Laine via Boost wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost <
> ... I'm one of the people who
> keeps insisting in LEWG that things go through Boost (or other avenues of
> widespread use) before being standardized.
My expectation is that the
> review will be very instructive, even if the library is rejected.
> Rejection is actually a very important data point! I would expect LEWG to
> delay standardization or to do a substantial re-think of whether this
> should be standardized at all if it is rejected.
> So Jonathan does not actually solicit feedback. It is what it is, take it
>> or leave it.
> I think that overstates it a bit, having talked to Jonathan about this.
> Again, Jonathan can correct me if I'm wrong.
FWIW - I think that boost should approach this as it always has. That
is, either reject, accept or accept with some modest conditions.
And I think the committee should do what IT usually does: accept,
reject, or redesign leveraging on experience as provided by users and
Boost and the Committee are related, but they are not the same. If they
were, one would be superfluous.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk