Re: [boost] Boost.Future & review of C++0x accepted librariesimplementations

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Future & review of C++0x accepted librariesimplementations
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-20 12:51:07

Hi Olivier,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <k-oli_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Future & review of C++0x accepted librariesimplementations

> 
> Am Donnerstag, 20. November 2008 15:37:10 schrieb vicente.botet:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The Anthony Future + Packaged task proposals have been adopted by the C++
>> Standard.
> 
> good you post a link to this information, please.

Done by Anthony. 

>> Is there a sense to review both Futures libraries together?
>> Can we accept the Braddock library if it not conforms to the standard?
> 
> That's the question - Braddocks Future library has more features (callback 
> functionality).

Yes it have more but also less.
 
>> BTW, the threadpool library uses Braddock Future library.
> 
> I can easily exchange the future implementation - chaining tasks and lazy task 
> evaluation will not be available with the lib from Anthony.

As I was not aware of that until yesterday, I though that every body in Boost should know that posting a specific post. My post was more to signal this fact to you in order you take the measures you consider the better.