Thanks for all your remarks. I didn't just barge in and think "oh hey, why didn't anyone else think of this". I knew that many people had thought of it before, and wanted to do it before.
Even so, it was worth re-raising. I knew from the lag between my orginal post and when it was visible on the list (hours!) that it was debated by the monitors to even present the idea for fear of just introducing noise to the list.
I don't believe so, we (the moderators that is) aren't hanging on every email waiting for the next post to moderate: in fact I approved your message as soon as I saw it first thing that morning :-)
I don't want to add noise. I was and am honest in my suggestions. And I will raise them again.
Well... suggesting a new library is never noise, even if it often proves more difficult to convert people to your point of view than you expect! What I'm not sure about, is exactly what you're proposing here: we don't normally accept non-portable libraries (hence the um... intense discussion), and we don't normally open new namespaces either unless there's a concrete piece of code to put in there (i.e. something that's been reviewed and accepted - the namespace and other packaging issues are often things that need discussing in the review). However.... I seem to recall once upon a time when Beman set up Boost's original "rules" that we were open for *examples* and/or proof of concept ideas that advance C++ programming in some way, we just seem to have moved away from that with our more recent focus on fully formed libraries. So I guess in that context, something like "here's how Boost can improve your DirectX code", might be a useful addition somewhere, I'm just not sure where! Anyhow, that's just me thinking aloud and definitely without a moderators hat on :-) Regards, John.