Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-31 08:19:49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost-announce_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:15 PM
Subject: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)

> Futures
> Join the review and discussion starting January 5, 2009.
> I need commitments for reviews from threading experts on the two
> Futures library candidates.
> Braddock Gaskill -
> Anthony Williams -
> Early comments are welcome.


This will be a particular review for everal reasons:
* there are two libraries for review the 'same' concept
* this is the first time we review a library that has a corresponding accepted standard for C++0x ( based on
* one of them is presented by one of the authors of the C++0x proposal.

I want to do a review, but IMO any Future Boost library should at least provide the current C++0x Future accepted standard and use the Boost.Exception library as mechanism to transport the exceptions. Other libraries that should be used are Boost.Chrono and Boost.Move, but these are not yet even in the schedule queue. Once we have an implementation of the standard interface we can see how other features can be implemented on top of this interface.

Neither Braddock nor Anthony implements the C++0x accepted interface even if the Anthony is much closer. But Anthony Williams has already an implementation of the C++0x Future on his comercial just::thread library (

The link on the Review Scheduled of the Anthony library has no other documentation than which seems not enough to start a review. Anthony has posted on this list an update of its library (

Tom, It is not clear from your mail which library from Anthony will be reviewed. Is it, or

Thanks in advance,

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at