Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-15 19:28:15

Zach Laine wrote:
> Right.  All those responses are valid.  My point was not that the review
> outcome was problematic.  My point was that the Boost review process and
> the WG21 review process have fundamentally different aims.
> Boost wants the best C++ libraries that appeal to its reviewers.  WG21 wants
> to make sure something is appropriate for the standard.  Those are similar,
> and even overlapping, but fundamentally different goals.

It doesn't really matter. For a library to get into the standard it needs to
undergo design review by LEWG and be accepted by LEWG. Adding a Boost
review on top of that can never be a "win" for the author, because it can
only increase the probability of rejection.