Subject: Re: [boost] Futures Review -- Where we are with the Futures review?
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-10 12:51:09
On 10 Feb 2009, at 17:08, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Tue Feb 10 2009, Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> "vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> Futures Review Starts Today - January 5, 2009
>>> Where we are with the Futures review?
>> Good question. It was supposed to be over by now, but there's been no
>> statement from Tom.
>>> There was not too much reviews, neither responses from the authors,
>>> ... What happened?
>> Sorry for not taking the time to respond to all your comments. They
>> much appreciated. Maybe the lack of reviews indicates a lack of
>> from the Boost community? That's a shame, if so.
>> From my point of view, I was interested, but I found the idea of
> reviewing two libraries at once to be simply overwhelming.
I want to back this up - I am very interested in futures, but I
decided not to get involved in this review for two reasons.
1) Medium to long term, I want to be able to use, or build on, the
standard futures, so I would like a library which strictly extends that.
2) I don't feel sufficently qualified to choose between two different
libraries, and all the trade-offs involved, knowing (assuming?) that
at least one of the libraries would have to be rejected.
I would be much happier if the two library authors could come together
and merge their work.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk