Subject: [boost] Pondering Futures
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-08 14:37:12
Ponderings on the Futures Library:
What is the status of Anthony Williams' submission of the futures
library to the c++ standards committee?
Is it more prudent to wait to find out what the c++ standards committe
is going to do first, before adding a
possibly incompatible version of the futures library to boost?
One could ask, if Anthony's submission is approved by the c++
standards committe, what is the point
of adding a "futures" library to boost as well?
Is a seperate library needed? What is the advantage of having a root
level library called boost::futures?
Why would it not be perferable to just extend boost::thread with the
additional capabiltity to handle "futures"?
Futures are a very useful concept, and I have used them personally.
The c++ commitee is correctly considering
adding them to the standard. I would be interested in hearing the
authors views on their "grand" vision for
parallel programming in general and how their "futures" library
submissions fit into this vision.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk