On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 6:19 PM Niall Douglas via Boost-users <boost-users@lists.boost.org> wrote:
> > Of course WG21 could have simply accepted the library after it went
> > through years of development and reviews, rather than trying to "fix"
> > it. This is precisely why WG21 should not be involved in innovation and
> > design, because then acceptance becomes a matter of opinion and
> > politics, rather than a simple acknowledgement of an interface that is
> > already successful.
>
> Like Boost, they declare changes which must be made before acceptance.
If a library is successful, popular, and its interface hasn't changed for years, it makes no sense to change it and then immediately standardize it.
> >> I'd echo Eric's sentiments on this completely. I don't have it in me to
> >> ever get a fundamentals library into Boost again. Besides, I'd likely
> >> end up getting divorced and my children no longer speaking to me. It's
> >> not worth it, personally speaking.
> >
> > You leave out the other possibility, to leave the library out of the
> > standard, where most libraries, including good libraries, belong.
>
> The same argument would then apply to Boost by this logic. I'm not sure
> that I agree with that.
It absolutely does apply to Boost. To think that it does not is equivalent to thinking that all non-Boost libraries are crap.
> The usual counterargument to standardising ever more libraries generally
> involves a decent centralised package ecosystem for C++, and sure, I get
> that that would avoid much over-eager standardisation.
That's not the argument I'm making. From this point of view, the lack of centralized package ecosystem is not an excuse.
But maybe all that needs to happen to avoid the obvious problems is slow down the process: put the library in experimental and standardize it only after/if its interface has remained unchanged for several years. Wasn't this what happened with Filesystem anyway?