These are the results of the candidate Boost.FixedString review. Thanks to all the people (and there's been many) who contributed. To clear up the tension, let me begin by announcing that: Candidate Boost.FixedString is ACCEPTED into Boost. Acceptance is subject to the authors' addressing of some issues raised during the review that I label as "priority 1" below. *Summary of reviews* We've had 10 full reviews:   * Accept: Deniz Bahadir, Emil Dotchevski, Gavin Lambert, JeanHeyd Meneide,     Paul A. Bristow, Peter Dimov, Peter Koch Larsen.   * Conditionally accept: Zach Laine.   * Reject: Andrzej Krzemienski, Phil Endecott. Zach's conditions to acceptance seem minor and easily addressable to me. Andrzej based his rejection on a perceived lack of clarity as to what the actual pitch of the library is, which ultimately boils down to the issue of throwing/asserting on capacity overflow: my impression is that a strong pitch, if not a universally acclaimed one, emerged during discussions. Finally, Phil voted to reject but then went on to state that he would accept based on a number of "minimally sufficient" conditions that are trivial to meet (or even have been already implemented by Krystian). All in all, I think it is a reasonable compromise to grant acceptance based on the resolution of a number of important issues, listed below. *Issues* I've classified issues in three different priorities:   * Priority 1: to be solved *before* inclusion into Boost.   * Priority 2: to be addressed somewhere in the future.   * Priority 3: anecdotal or without clear support from the community, to be addressed     at the authors's discretion. * Priority 1 issues* 1. CMakeLists.txt should either be made generic or removed from repo (it is currently a specific thing for Visual Studio). 2. Choose a name for the component. Some consensus arose that naming should follow std::string's and be of the form basic_foo<...> with aliases foo, wfoo, etc. As for "foo", the following candidates have been proposed:   * static_string   * fixed_capacity_string   * array_string   * static_capacity_string   * inplace_string   * capped_string   * bounded_capacity_string   * bounded_string To be clear, I don't think any of these is clearly more popular than the rest, so it is up to the authors to make up their mind. 3. constexpr as much as possible, taking into account that, pre C++20, this requires zero initialization of the data array. 4. noexcept as much as possible and, in principle, at least as much as std::string. 5. Provide hash overloads. Up to the authors if they want to cover Boost.Hash as well. 6. Determine the exact behavior on capacity overflow. I think *some* partial consensus arose around throwing via boost::throw_exception so as to provide an opt-out mechanism for exception-handicapped scenarios. This has been the most contentious issue during the review but I think the authors are in their right to decide on throwing much as anyone can decide otherwise and propose what would be basically a different library. 7. Make substr return a fixed_string rather than a view, and additionally provide a view-returning subview member function. 8. State clearly on the docs what C++ version is required. 9 There are wrong "size() + m > max_size()" checks (they could overflow) in the code. 10. to_fixed_string should be a set of overloads mathing those of std::string. 11. There's an issue around some detail::is_input_iterator alias that Zach asked be clarified. 12. Compile-fail tests should be added to verify that those functions with constraints are correctly constrained. *Priority 2* 13. Determine if fixed_string<0> should be specialized or not to make it more memory efficient. This raises potential issues in the uniqueness of the pointer returned by data(). 14. Determine if operator+(fixed_string,fixed_string) should be provided. My impression is that people generally wanted this, and I've been tempted to raise this to priority 1. 15. Optimize the type of the internal size data member when size_t is larger than necessary. 16. BOOST_FIXED_STRING_USE_BOOST is unconditionally defined within the code. The authors should clearly state what this is for and let the user configure the library to use with/without Boost or, else, remove the thing entirely. 17. Source code organization (three equally named files, detal and impl folders), raised some eyebrows. Some (including Vinnie) favor a single-file implementation. 18. Docs should be more C++ standard-like and provide a synopsis. Vinnie has indicated they may abandon Doxygen in favor of asciidoc to produce better-quality docs. In general, people were not enthusiastic about the documentation. 19. The current monolithic test should be split up in lighter, more manegeable test files. Peter Dimov suggested some additional improvements on the testing part. * Priority 3* 20. Provide a literal operator"" 21. Should traits parameter be removed? 22. Store size (as capacity-size) in the last char of the data array, so as to save one memory byte. This might affect performance, though. 23. Add functions for checking remaining capacity. Thanks to Krystian and Vinnie for their work! And to everybody who has contributed to this really interesting review. Best regards, Joaquín M López Muñoz Review manager for candidate Boost.FixedString