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

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures Review -- Where we are with the Futures review?
From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-10 13:11:33

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Christopher Jefferson
<chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2009, at 17:08, David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Tue Feb 10 2009, Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>

Seconded. I'm quite interested in a futures library, but I didn't have
the time nor the the ability to try to find out which library really
were the be selected.

> I would be much happier if the two library authors could come together and
> merge their work.

Yes please :)

-- 
gpd