On 10/8/23 21:08, Andrzej Krzemienski via Boost wrote:
I had similar concerns for other libraries recently accepted to Boost: Boost.MySQL, Boost.Redis. I cannot assess their quality or design, as they are too big, and I am not an expert. They may be good, but even good libraries do not necessarily belong to Boost. Are they sufficiently general-purpose? Are we just giving a stump that a library meets a certain level of quality of design and implementation? Or are we aiming at an extended Standard Library?
I think there is a long history of libraries that are unlikely to be ever accepted into the standard but which are generally very much useful. Boost.Spirit, Boost.Intrusive, Boost.Fusion, Boost.MPL, to name a few examples. (Yes, MPL has fallen out of favor lately, but one cannot overestimate its impact before wide adoption of C++11.) I'm not saying anything about the libraries you mention. I have no experience with them, nor am I familiar with their domain. I'm just saying that targeting the standard library has never been the criteria for accepting libraries into Boost.