Zach Laine wrote:
4) The one time I managed to cajole someone [from WG21] into [submitting a library for] a Boost review, it was rejected because people didn't see the point of it. I'm still not sure why that was. It had a point, is quite useful, and is now in the standard.
(My edits in [] for clarity, I hope.) You're referring to JeanHeyd Meneide's out_ptr, right? My recollection of that episode was that we just didn't have enough reviews. I think I saw that only about 3 had been written, so I thought I'd better try to write something. JeanHeyd wrote a long reply to my review which finished by saying something like "Lots of Fortune 500 companies are using this so it's definitely useful". The problem was, * those Fortune 500 companies didn't turn up on the list and submit positive reviews *. So you had to reject it, because a few ignoramuses like me didn't see the point. As you said, it's a lot of work to prepare a library for review - and then it only gets looked at by five people. In JeanHeyd's case, they were five people who mostly said no; I worry equally about reviews where libraries with significant defects get accepted, because the reviewers don't have the expertise to call out the problems. I'd love to see more reviews submitted by people in the "upper echelons" of the C++ world, even if they are brief ones. What are the obstacles that stop people from submitting reviews? Regards, Phil. (P.S. Zach, I tried to reply to you off-list to check if I was right about this being out_ptr, but it bounced from gmail's spam filter. Do you have unusually strong filter settings?)