Boost logo

Boost :

From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-18 21:03:29


On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:08 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2021 18:02, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
>
> > If your goal is standardization, convincing the users is utterly
irrelevant
> > to success. Worse, it is a lose-lose proposition, you might get one and
a
> > half stars on GitHub which doesn't look too good. I remember Niall
giving
> > (good) advice that if the goal is standardization, it is best to not
bother
> > with a Boost review, either: it adds a lot more work that is irrelevant
to
> > achieving your goal, plus you risk rejection which doesn't look too
good.
>
> That's not _quite_ what I advised, though it is close.
>
> My advice was, and always has been, that the most valuable aspect of
> Boost _to the library_ and its author is the peer review. A high quality
> review is quite literally priceless - it cannot be bought for money.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, and I still think your advice is
sound if the goal is standardization, and as far as I remember it was
predicated on that. Obviously peer review is great.

> I skipped Boost and went straight to WG21 with LLFIO, and I feel very
> guilty about it.

You can always request a Boost Review. If successful, the library gets
enormous distribution which may actually make it more accessible than
waiting for it to arrive in STL.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk