On 29/11/2023 04:24, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Jeff Garland via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
I assume you mean when LEWG basically didn't exist and it was *just LWG*
This structure (with "just LWG") was vastly superior to the current model (LEWG + LWG) in terms of delivering the best value for C++ users. Because when it was just LWG, the group was composed also of great library designers in addition to wordsmiths. By creating the new group LEWG, the great library designers are stuck in LWG where they cannot change anything given to them by LEWG, and meanwhile LEWG is populated by people who just want to "get their library into std" for various personal reasons.
Furthermore having "just LWG" created a natural bottleneck: not every library could go in, so decisions weighing the benefits and comparing what brings the best value for the limited committee resources were made more conscientiously.
I would go further than that Vinnie - back when all of WG21 sat in the same room, library and language worked together a lot better. The current situation at WG21 - as proved in multiple votes over multiple years - is that Library have diametrically opposite opinions on what is important in many important topics than Language. This manifests in EWG refusing to consider language changes requested by Library, thus forcing Library to either make do or invent some hidious metaprogramming hack which adds seconds per compilation unit because nobody over in Language will entertain that Library might have valid concerns. You then get complaints from some in EWG that Library is "doing all the wrong things", and "only if it were run more like EWG". Obviously returning everybody to a single room isn't practical. But I also think using the same processes for Library as for Language is a bad move. Library isn't like Language, it should have its own unique and quite different processes in my opinion. In particular, I think Library should gain the power to change the language where it suits Library, and EWG removed from that part entirely. That will be seen as incenduary I am sure, however I think we would have long ago solved library ABI stability mitigations and lightweight exception handling if Library were allowed to decide some parts of language design. Niall