Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?

Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 12:09:00

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?

> 
>>> 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?

If implementations were available on all the platforms I didn't care about that. There are some libraries as Chrono, UniquePtr and Futures that will help to make uniform other Boost libraries. There is also  the emulation of Move semantics and other that I don't kwow that will make eassier the transition to C++0x.
 
> 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
> a library.

Because other libraries need it, and Futures are not an implementation detail. The users needs to use them.

> What is so special about the futures library?

Other than an interface already exists in C++0x. This is already the case for the Chrono and UniquePtr library, which I hope will be subject to a review, not for the interface, but yes for the documentation, implementation and tests.
 
> 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.

Well I don't know if this is sohaitable.
 
> 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
> added.

I agree with you that the documentation needs to be improved. I  think reviews are needed for library acceptation but also to improve them.

Tom as the Review Manager, please, could you clarify all these points with the authors as soon as you can.

Best,
Vicente