Boost logo

Boost Users :

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-26 07:11:26

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users [mailto:boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: 25 August 2015 20:20
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
> On 8/25/15 4:37 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > IMO what we are deciding is if we want this software to be developed > and maintained, not, as
> some mistakenly imagine, if it is finished > > and complete ready to go into the 1.60 release.
It isn't
> and won't be > until 1.61 at the very earliest, and will still be modified after > > > release
> > It is using cutting edge tools.
> > It is breaking new ground and will be changes by C++ Standard, Library and compiler changes.
> > Personally, I don't believe that Incubator is the right way to speed > development of this
> Hmmm - why not?

I think it will never take off until 'official'. That is most unreasonable, but a fact of life.

> > I think we need to alter the Boost review and acceptance process.
> In what way?

Having two 'status' flags:

 * mature and 'standard' - stable and bug-free (we hope).
 * 'experimental' - usable but still be being improved.

The C++ Standards people have started to accept the need for 'experimental' status.

(Of course, the 'status' is really a continuum, not a bool).

My main reason is that I believe that people won't use libraries until they are in the release.

And without lots of users ("first encounter with the enemy") , you don't find if things are really
useful or not.

IMO, too many Boost reviews are by far too few people and with too little real-life use.


Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
+44 (0) 1539 561830

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at