On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:08 AM Niall Douglas via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
On 17/03/2021 18:02, Emil Dotchevski via Boost wrote:
If your goal is standardization, convincing the users is utterly
irrelevant
to success. Worse, it is a lose-lose proposition, you might get one and a half stars on GitHub which doesn't look too good. I remember Niall giving (good) advice that if the goal is standardization, it is best to not bother with a Boost review, either: it adds a lot more work that is irrelevant to achieving your goal, plus you risk rejection which doesn't look too good.
That's not _quite_ what I advised, though it is close.
My advice was, and always has been, that the most valuable aspect of Boost _to the library_ and its author is the peer review. A high quality review is quite literally priceless - it cannot be bought for money.
I didn't mean to put you on the spot, and I still think your advice is sound if the goal is standardization, and as far as I remember it was predicated on that. Obviously peer review is great.
I skipped Boost and went straight to WG21 with LLFIO, and I feel very guilty about it.
You can always request a Boost Review. If successful, the library gets enormous distribution which may actually make it more accessible than waiting for it to arrive in STL.