Subject: Re: [boost] Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-06 02:19:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:25 AM
Subject: [boost] Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009
> Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009
> Braddock Gaskill
> Anthony Williams
As Anthony has poste to this ML
> The latest version of that library is at:
> Docs: http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/files/futures_documentation.html
> Code+Docs: http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/files/n2561_futures_revised_20080530.zip
> Please review one or both libraries for submission to boost.
> Apparently, Anthony Williams' submission has also been
> sumbitted the C++ standards committee. Status unknown.
Anthony Williams' submission has been accepted (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2627.html) and included in the
N2798 Working Draft, Standard for Programming Language C++ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2798.pdf Section 30.5.
As I have already say on a post responding to "Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)" (without any response neither from you neither from the authors), this is the first time we review a library that has a corresponding accepted standard for C++0x.
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 (http://www.stdthread.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=64.0).
Anthony, I would prefer you propose for review the n2627 interfacce. Why do you propose for review un interface that is outdated? It seems to me a lost of time.
> Apparently, there has been various discussions about these two
> libraries last six months.
> The authors will need to bring us up to date as to why they want their libraries
> to be reviewed seperately.
I have no see any message from Braddock since a long time. Braddock are you still there?
> Also, each author should evaluate each others library and point out
> the differences
> in their implentations. These will serve as useful discussion points.
> The ideal outcome in my mind would be a resubmitted submission,
> incorporating the best
> ideas from each. Tell me if you share this view or what is your
> preferred result.
As I have already say, any Future Boost library should at least provide the current C++0x Future accepted standard. Once we have an implementation of the standard interface we can see how other features can be implemented on top of this interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk