On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 12:06 +0000, Paul A Bristow wrote:

| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David B. Held | Sent: 15 March 2005 00:13 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: FSM Review

| It will be a sad day when Boost rejects a good library because | another library in a different part of the design space is | theoretically faster.

IMO this hits the nail on the head.

As with too many reviews, there have been very interesting, but essentially speculative, alternative ideas, produced not during the 'proposed library' development phase, but somewhat destructively and at the 'last minute'.

Sorry, but check the archives before "speculating" on when comments have been made. I argued for state charts to be implemented in terms of STT at the pre-review in May 2004.

These should not be a reason for rejection, but should spur development of different (and hopefully in some ways better) ideas to submit in future.

Rejection is not permanent. If a library has flaws and they are substantial enough then it should be rejected so that when changed, it can be reviewed again. I would like to see a state chart lib in boost but not as it currently stands. I would not mind if it was accepted as *beta* which would tell users that it has caveats. /ikh