Re: What is this "Beman Project Development"?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-05-10 15:26:03

Niall Douglas wrote:
> Myself and Boost have had a confrontational relationship in the past, but in
> my opinion (you and other will disagree), y'all after arguing heavily with me at
> the time then a few years later went ahead and quietly implemented almost
> everything I suggested. So I'm good with Boost at the present time - I spoke,
> you listened, you eventually implemented much of it. Rock on!

I have to admit that I can't at the moment think of any feature about which
I argued with you when you proposed it, and then went ahead and quietly
implemented later.

It's true that you had already proposed

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1196r0.html

but I'm not sure I actually knew that when I implemented this, and even if I did,
I definitely don't remember arguing with you about it.

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1197r0.html

is - maybe - something you had proposed earlier, but not to Boost and not in
this form; the only discussion you were involved in about that (that I know
about) is the SG14 one, in which I hadn't participated. I only read the paper

https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0824r0.pdf

but I think that at this point I've already heard enough complaints about
the std::string use in <system_error> that I'd probably have written 1197
even without reading the SG14 discussion summary.

It's also true that system::result is very similar to outcome::result (and
std::expected), but I don't think I argued with you about having that, either.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that you were there first. It's the arguing
against part that I have no recollection of.