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

Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Johannes Brunen (JBrunen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 15:30:30

Hello Tom,

"Tom Brinkman" <reportbase_at_[hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:30f04db60902130835qa9bdd5fs1f450b77f7b26e1d_at_mail.gmail.com...
> 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.´

As long as there aren't available implementations for the platforms boost 
support, I think it is a good idea to do so. Additionally, we would be able 
to extend and evolve such an interface and implementation.

> What is so special about the futures library?

It could be the backbone for higher level libraries. They may bring 
multithreading programming to the mass.

> 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.

IMHO, future concepts deserve a separate library.

> 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.

Yes.

> The library has been on the review boards for over a year.  Plenty of time 
> for these to have been
> added.

To make a library proposal to the community is one think. But to wait for 
review and stay tuned is another one.

So the question to ask is whether one of the authors or another qualified 
person is willing to bring forward a boostifiable implementation according 
to the approved interface.

Best,
Johannes