From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-04 10:09:22
On December 3, 2019 2:31:59 PM EST, Vinnie Falco via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > ...
> There seems to be a lot of disagreement on handling overflow so I'd
> like to remind everyone of why this library is being proposed:
> A Beast user asked "Why isn't beast::static_string in a separate Boost
> library? It is quite useful on its own."
> They did not ask to have the treatment of overflow changed, to have
> the sizeof the class optimized for various N, or to have any of the
> API changed at all. Make of this what you will.
One user's (possibly unconsidered) thoughts on the design are not binding on Boost. You surely know that what is happening is the essence of the Boost review process.
If you're suggesting that you're unwilling to make changes of the sorts being discussed, you should alert everyone to this being a take-it-or-leave-it review now.
-- Rob (Sent from my portable computation device.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk