Re: [text] [review] Text formal review result

From: Jeff Garland (azswdude_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-26 23:05:25

Many Boost developers, including Zach (we've talked), share that view. But
the thing is most library authors are choosing to go straight to the
committee instead of coming through Boost these days.  It's already going
to take them several years of effort if they bypass Boost -- so you can see
the rationale for going around if coming through Boost could delay or
derail. Seems to me that Zach is taking a parallel track -- getting the
proposal into the committee and the study unicode group, but then bringing
it back to Boost for review and shakedown as well to ensure quality and
usage experience. And while it's clear that a bunch of members want to
improve unicode asap -- it's not necessarily a high priority:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p0592r4.html

And now I'll say some fairly radical things. To me this just says that as
an organization we should consider alternate paths to boost adoption.  For
example, perhaps if a library is proposed for the standard it should
automatically be allowed to become a boost 'experimental library' that
would ship with releases.  The library might not be maintained by the paper
authors, but maybe we could coax more authors into realizing there's a
benefit to shipping here in the form of massive user exposure.   And we
could still have a review -- but maybe the experimental acceptance wouldn't
hinge on the results.

Jeff

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:22 PM Emil Dotchevski via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:43 AM Zach Laine via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > I want to standardize something like the interfaces there for C++23
> >
> > Why are you targeting a particular release date? Is your development
> > strategy going to be different because you want to "get something in
> > to C++23" versus "I want to standardize something after it has
> > achieved sufficient field experience and maturity?"
>
> I was going to ask the same question. Nothing should be standardized that
> isn't already the defacto standard. It isn't likely that between what's
> left of 2020 and 2023 this library or any other will become the defacto
> standard. I know this fails on deaf ears but it needs to be said.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>