Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Andrzej's review
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-26 19:59:48
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost <
> Why accepting this library when we have `expected` being standardized? I do
> not really mind having two in Boost.
I agree, we should not be rejecting libraries just because another similar
library already exists in Boost.
> First, it is ready, being proposed,
> and applied in a number of non-trivial code-bases. Niall claims that his
> trade-offs are better tailored to predictable-latency applications. I do
> not have enough knowledge to asses it. They look convincing. The only way
> to test it is to give this library the Boost blessing and have the user
> test it.
Here I disagree. If there are issues with a library, they should be
addressed before it is accepted; we should be proposing/accepting only
relatively mature libraries that have seen real, if limited, deployment.
First, this is a matter of quality standards. Secondly, fixing problems
when there already is substantial user base is messy, and often requires
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk