AMDG On 10/18/2018 04:19 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
Obviously this is a novelty in the context of Boost. At the same time the idea of accepting multiple submissions for the same functionality is also a novelty for boost.
Not entirely novel. Does anyone remember the futures review?
I think it is necessary in this case. But I was concerned about complaints that the process might not be fair. I'm also sensitive to complaints that Boost doesn't represent all groups "fairly". So I thought I'd include this idea. It's also true that it's orthogonal to the actual substance at hand and I don't have a huge amount of personal ego involved in this aspect. I'm happy to go along with the consensus. And I'd like to hear what others think.
Well, you can count me opposed. I don't think it adds anything other than a hassle. In Christ, Steven Watanabe