Re: [boost] Futures Review -- Where we are with the Futures review?

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  
>> are
>> much appreciated. Maybe the lack of reviews indicates a lack of  
>> interest
>> 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.

Chris