From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-12 03:05:29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] How to review futures?
> Douglas Gregor <dgregor_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On May 9, 2008, at 2:05 PM, John Phillips wrote:
>>> So far, the best thought I've had on the subject is to run a single
>>> review that includes both libraries, where it is explicitly part of
>>> review to discuss which parts of which realizations are the best
>>> This process will need to keep the proposals before the committee in
>>> mind, but it is a way to compare and contrast the strengths of the two
>>> in close proximity.
>> That's an interesting idea. I would like to hear from the authors of
>> the libraries, because I'm guessing that this puts quite a bit of
>> pressure on them... the end result is very likely to be a merger of
>> the best ideas from both libraries, so they'll need to work together.
> I think a joint review is a very good idea. I think there should only be
> boost.futures library, and both our libraries offer slightly different
> perspectives, so they should be discussed together and the "best"
> chosen, which may be entirely new, but likely contains elements from each.
>>> If we do this, there are a couple of questions that
>>> should be added to the usual review process.
>>> * Which interface choices are best suited to the problem domain?
>>> * Should Boost offer competing implementations of this feature?
>> Ideally, I think Boost would not offer competing implementations in
>> the same domain. Choice can be good, but it can also be confusing for
>>> * Should the libraries be melded together?
>> I think this is very, very likely.
>>> * Should a subset of the approved library be restricted to only the
>>> facilities and interface in the standardization committee proposal?
>> Absolutely not. If we can do better than the committee proposal,
>> let's do it and send the results to the C++ committee for consideration.
> Totally agreed. The proposal hasn't been approved by the committee yet,
> part of my drive in implementing it is to get feedback before it is
> by the committee. We want to standardize the best interface we can get in
> time available.
How many time do we have? When the review should take place to have time to
write a new submission?
Anthony, do you intend to write this submission following the results of the
Before the review I think that it will be interesting that Antony and
Braddock present separately or jointly, the advantages and liabilities of
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk