Re: [Capy] Review Note

On Sat, Jun 27, 2026 at 7:29 AM Andrzej Krzemienski <[email protected]>
wrote:

> So, you want just the Awaitables protocol? Use a subset of Capy.
> You want an ASIO replacement? Use Capy + Corosio.
>

Right


> Maybe Awaitables should be its own library?
>

The include are structured that way, to some extent, through the
subdirectories in include/boost/capy.

However this point to a tension in the Boost. There are competing forces:

* Users want as few dependencies as possible
* Users also don't like the monolithic distribution
* Good engineering means decomposition of concerns, but
* each library has to pass a review

For the last point above, note that even though Corosio and Capy were
presented as a bundle, Capy was evaluated independently, and the Capy
portion was rejected by one reviewer. In practical terms the more finely
decomposed an offering into individual libraries, the harder it is to
present and pass review.


> If not, maybe at least have the documentation in Capy split into two
> distinct sections, and not mix them in the Reference section.
>

Documentation can always be improved, yes

Thanks
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/MVWYO2OZYEWOZS4YW36PNVGAIII7KKFE/