Re: Boost vs Std library features (was: Re: [scope] Scope review starts on November 26th)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-11-29 01:34:05

Jeff Garland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:36 PM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > So
> > **PLEASE** Boost keep doing what it's doing, keep standardising
> > standardised library facilities, because you're a hell of a lot better
> > at it than WG21 in my opinion.
> >
> 
> We still do a bit of that, but mostly not because most proposals simply
> bypass boost at this point.

This hasn't been working very well for WG21. The trend is towards
proposals named P00xxR38 with quality often not matching the average
rejected Boost library.

LEWG is not an efficient mechanism for designing libraries, because
iterating here is vastly faster and better than iterating at WG21 meetings.

(But to ensure smooth sailing one would nowadays need to remember to
keep extensive design notes on how the library came to be this way and
not some other, in order to produce these on demand when asked in LEWG.
This used to be less needed in the past when LWG and Boost significantly
overlapped.)