niedz., 15 wrz 2024 o 21:43 Joaquín M López Muñoz via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> napisał(a):
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 15 de set. de 2024, às 21:28, Peter Dimov via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> escreveu:
Zach Laine wrote:
[…] 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.
It would if field experience weighed more in WG21’s acceptance criteria.
But because it often doesn't, the Beman Project does indeed fulfil an important role. If nothing else (and there is likely more, that I fail to appreciate), it allows one to prove that what is proposed is actually implementable. Recently, there was a situation in a WG21 triannual meeting that the proposal for inplace_vector had to be withdrawn in the plenary voting at the last moment because it was observed that what had been approved by the subgroups was unimplementable. Having the library in the Beman Project would have prevented that from happening. I am not saying that this is all good. But it could be worse without the Beman project. Anyway, I now understand that the expectation I expressed earlier, that the library authors after the hearing in LEWG should be directed to Boost is misguided. Thank you. &rzej;