On 7/5/26 1:46 AM, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
Hi Everyone,
....
Regards, &rzej;
Another incredibly insightful review by &rzel !!! Just a couple o observations. &drez observations put their finger on a fundamental problem: C++ doesn't have the right primitive to support this kind of library which is in much demand. When this happens, we often respond by making a library in spite of this. Things can be made to work. But this ultimately unsatisfactory. Having several libraries which have been made to work, hopefully should give a hint what small enhancement to the language is missing to make these kinds of libraries easier to write correctly. This is job of the standards committe aided by our brightest and imaginative minds. Go to it guys! But I think it's long past time for boost to stop focusing in terms of creating libraries that will one day be added to the standard. The standards process, though very useful in the past, but has reached the point where it's a victim of it's success. Its enhancements (save rare cases) complicate the language and library more than they contribute in terms of utility. Many result in a net loss to the future of C++. Boost can/will continue to be a main source of new libraries and try to set the standard from design, coding, testing, review, education, and documentation of C++ libraries. Let the standards committee and the companies who support them do what they will. It's less and less relevant in the future. Robert Ramey
_______________________________________________ Boost mailing list -- boost@lists.boost.org To unsubscribe send an email to boost-leave@lists.boost.org https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/ Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/boost@lists.boost.org/message/M6NXDYD7...