[boost] Pondering Futures

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.

tom brinkman