Zachary Turner <divisortheory <at> gmail.com> writes:
...
also, i think it should be mandatory for each library author to review the
other author's library.
1. I second that. It is only common sense and the usual practice that every suggestion comes with a comparison summary of what that suggested functionality introduces new or does better compared to the existing facilities. And surely the lib. authors are the best positioned to provide such summaries. 2. IMO we should avoid fragmentation (of the user base and dev. efforts) and inevitable confusion. Therefore, there should be only one boost::log library. Having two separate reviews puts those libraries on uneven footing which is unfair and detrimental to the ultimate outcome. 3. Does it *have* to be lib1 *or* lib2? In the end, we do not want lib1 or lib2 or lib3. Instead, we want the best and that is probably a joint effort and selective combination of all the above. Given the situation, would that be unrealistic to ask the respective authors to come up with a joint proposal? Would not that eliminate all timing and squabbling issues and ultimately deliver the best outcome to the community? Best, V.