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

Subject: Re: [boost] Futures Review -- Where we are with the Futures review?
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-10 13:40:14

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Jefferson" <chris_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Futures Review -- Where we are with the Futures review?

> 
> 
> 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.

IMO, this is a shame. 

> 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.

I agree. So we needed, starting from the current C++0x proposa, to see which other features were absolutly needed. The features don't needing any modification on the standard will pose no problem. But those features needing to be implemented intrusively will be asignal of something missing on the standard.

> 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.

Both authors had state that they will work together to get the Boost.Future. So no need to choose, just select the features.

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

I realy thoght this will happens this way.

Vicente