Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-03 00:17:02

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:18 AM Christian Mazakas via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'd be curious if it gains any real users by being included in Boost
> and who knows, maybe people will actually like it..

I have mixed feelings about this. One the one hand Boost is supposed
to be slightly more relaxed than LEWG with respect to new additions to
the collection.

But in my opinion, the acceptance of this library is effectively
saying to the public that the Boost community of reviewers believes
the public interface and intended use-case of the library follows what
we believe to be best practices and state of the art for C++
coroutines. Is it, however? I don't know, as I am not a subject matter
expert, but I don't think that accepting to answer that question just
by "shoving it into Boost" is healthy.

Boost.Beast, Boost.JSON, Boost.URL all had users outside the Boost
community well before any reviews took place. I would argue that
Boost.JSON was so similar to previous popular works that it wasn't
that meaningful but Beast and URL are sufficiently novel in their
public interfaces that it could not and should not have been taken for
granted that they should be accepted without some users.

Not all Boost libraries need this, only some. For example
Boost.Charconv is essentially already vetted since it is based on an
established API.

I don't speak for Boost and I am relatively new compared to some folks
that have been around from the beginning, so I am unsure whether my
criteria about seeing some field experience for this particular
library is important. Perhaps someone who has been involved in Boost
longer than me and is more familiar with the unwritten rules of the
review process can offer clarity on this point.

> It's not too late for a review from you or Richard if you have strong
> feelings that the library ought to be rejected?

I do not believe I have sufficient emotional, mental, and technical
resources to write a review for this library at a level of quality
that represents Boost's reputation and the interests of the invested
parties fairly. All I have are these thoughts, which are not
sufficient to arrive at a simple accept or reject conclusion. Other
people will need to decide if and what importance to place on it. I'm
okay with any outcome.

Thanks