Re: [Asset Stewardship] About the Beman Project

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-15 20:56:44

On 9/15/24 22:28, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> 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.

This is only true if the goal is to get the library in the standard. If
the goal was to get a library *of the best possible quality* in the
standard then every bit of review and field experience helps.