Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-06 10:14:36

on Thu Jan 01 2009, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>> Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz? 
>>
>
>   The choice to do these together came from a discussion on the list
> when they were submitted. Since Anthony's submission is an
> implementation of the proposal for the standard, his interface is
> fixed for him, and the thought from the discussion was we should at
> least look at what the standard is adding. Braddock's submission
> differs somewhat, and people wanted a chance to have a boost library
> that was different from the proposal, if it proved superior.
>
>   Sorry if you missed out on that, but it was several months ago. Ron
> and I just went with the desires of those who commented.
>
>   BTW: After long and honorable service, Tom stepped down as a review
> wizard a bit more than a year ago. I'm sure he would have plenty to
> offer if he wanted it back, but as far as I know, he hasn't asked to
> be re-appointed.

Sorry to have lost track of all this a bit.  Regardless, it seems like
this has potential for a great deal of confusion and I was wondering if
the actual review wizards can do anything more to make it go smoothly.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com