Re: [Async] Naming land grab?

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-10-08 18:20:56

On 10/8/23 21:08, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
> 
> I had similar concerns for other libraries recently accepted to Boost:
> Boost.MySQL, Boost.Redis. I cannot assess their quality or design, as they
> are too big, and I am not an expert. They may be good, but even good
> libraries do not necessarily belong to Boost. Are they sufficiently
> general-purpose? Are we just giving a stump that a library meets a certain
> level of quality of design and implementation? Or are we aiming at an
> extended Standard Library?

I think there is a long history of libraries that are unlikely to be
ever accepted into the standard but which are generally very much
useful. Boost.Spirit, Boost.Intrusive, Boost.Fusion, Boost.MPL, to name
a few examples. (Yes, MPL has fallen out of favor lately, but one cannot
overestimate its impact before wide adoption of C++11.)

I'm not saying anything about the libraries you mention. I have no
experience with them, nor am I familiar with their domain. I'm just
saying that targeting the standard library has never been the criteria
for accepting libraries into Boost.