David Abrahams wrote:
The serialization library is a beautiful example of how a rejection ended up being very positive for the library and for Boost. Whether or not that experience can be replicated is another question. It was certainly not easy for Robert.
If my hazy recollections are right, the initial serialization library review brought up various criticisms of the library, which had been solved by other libraries, or for which useful techniques were known and could be applied. This library seems to differ - it appears that there are criticisms of the library's performance characteristics, but no-one is pointing to alternative libraries that solve these problems (albeit they may be deficient in other ways). Similarly, I haven't noticed any suggestions for specific techniques that might be used to improve the performance of the current submission. Also, (albeit without much familiarity with state machines) I don't believe that the library should be rejected due to a lack of generality. If the solution is a non-starter for significant groups of potential users, then it will not be a hindrance in the development of other state machine libraries with different goals (or the same goals and better implementation). The people who need performance above features can continue to develop their high-performance solutions, hopefully to the eventual standard required for boost acceptance. Apologies to Andreas that I am not sufficiently qualified to submit a review. Matt