Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber mini-review September 4-13
From: Agustín K-ballo Bergé (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-09-11 12:02:16

On 9/11/2015 11:34 AM, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Nat Goodspeed <nat_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> The mini-review of Boost.Fiber by Oliver Kowalke begins today, Friday
>> September 4th, and closes Sunday September 13th.
>
> I'm pleased to see the level of interest in this library. Many people
> have contributed to the discussions so far.
>
> However, as of this moment we have no definite reviews in hand.
>
> I invite those of you who have an opinion to state explicitly whether
> you believe the candidate Fiber library should, or should not, be
> included in Boost.

I have fallen out of commission for reasons outside my control and I 
won't be able to produce a formal review, so here is the short version:

My vote is to reject the library in its current form, the reasons (most 
of) are scattered across the mailing list. Regrettably some of those 
reasons are no different than those presented on the first review, and 
have not been addressed in any form.

> If, regardless of your yes/no vote, you also have ideas about how the
> library could/should be improved, please state them as explicitly as
> possible to give the library author the best chance to act. If you
> have already elaborated a particular suggestion in previous mail,
> please at least summarize and say so.

I'd like to see this library becoming part of Boost, so I would like to 
urge the author to engage in the community. Please ask for feedback way 
before the review process starts. If you have already had a review, 
follow up on each piece of feedback, explicitly state how you have 
addressed it, nag the reviewers to look at your solution to guarantee it 
matches their expectation, etc.

Finally, although this carries no weight on my vote, I find the decision 
of making the library C++14 only extremely disappointing. The library 
doesn't **need** any of the new C++14 futures, it just uses them to 
simplify the work of the author at the cost of reducing the number of 
potential library users. C++11 support for this library would be almost 
trivial, I don't think this decision is justified.

Regards,
-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé.-
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com