Although it's implicit in my comments, I'll be explicit about my suggestion:
a) submit outcome in a way that looks like the rest of boost libraries so it would be evaluated by the same criteria that other boost libraries are.
As Jon Kalb mentioned during CppChat only yesterday, there has been a wholesale move away from libraries entering monolithic collections like Boost in favour of people's own github repos where few end users find them. And that has been a negative thing with regard to WG21 standardisation.
As I hinted at strongly in my technical description of boost-lite, what's coming next is that libraries will join **multiple** collections of standards aspiring C++ libraries. There are already mini-Boost's popping up, most of them are individual github collections, but it won't be long now - thanks to git and git submodules - that a C++ library will become part of many collections simultaneously. All my libraries have been written to be good neighbours to any other C++, and to be highly flexible for end use cases. It's a huge value add for the burgeoning ecosystem of next generation C++ libraries.
It's just funny to see how you advertise your library to be a good citizen to be used by many others but at the same time you claim that Boost itself is a bad citizen as parts of it are used by other libraries... But I got it: you're the only person on this world who really understands what C++ developers want and how irrational everybody is who is not seeing things your way. As I said already: good luck, and I may add good riddance. Regards Hartmut --------------- http://boost-spirit.com http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu