Subject: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Tom Brinkman (reportbase_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 11:35:28
>> One last sentence, we should not forget that the interface of the future
>> library has already gone through the standard committe.
It should work the other way around.
Are we going to start picking through libraries that have already been
standardized in Cx0 and begin adding them to boost?
Not a good idea in my view. The interface is already available. Use it.
But why go to the trouble of adding it as a top-level boost library to
What is so special about the futures library?
Why does Anthony not just slip "futures" it into boost::threads. He maintains
that library. Its a non-issue. He doesn't need our approval to do that.
Considering the way this review has floundered at this point, that is the best
outcome that I can see.
If we put it up for review again as top-level boost library, it will need to be
fully documented, with samples and test cases. The library has been on the
review boards for over a year. Plenty of time for these to have been
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk