Subject: Re: [boost] Futures - Reviews Needed (January 5, 2009)
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-06 10:14:36
on Thu Jan 01 2009, John Phillips <phillips-AT-mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Again, aren't you able to influence that a bit as review wiz?
> The choice to do these together came from a discussion on the list
> when they were submitted. Since Anthony's submission is an
> implementation of the proposal for the standard, his interface is
> fixed for him, and the thought from the discussion was we should at
> least look at what the standard is adding. Braddock's submission
> differs somewhat, and people wanted a chance to have a boost library
> that was different from the proposal, if it proved superior.
> Sorry if you missed out on that, but it was several months ago. Ron
> and I just went with the desires of those who commented.
> BTW: After long and honorable service, Tom stepped down as a review
> wizard a bit more than a year ago. I'm sure he would have plenty to
> offer if he wanted it back, but as far as I know, he hasn't asked to
> be re-appointed.
Sorry to have lost track of all this a bit. Regardless, it seems like
this has potential for a great deal of confusion and I was wondering if
the actual review wizards can do anything more to make it go smoothly.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk