Subject: Re: [boost] [future] @Tom -> review result?
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 16:03:54
Tom Brinkman <reportbase_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> One last sentence, we should not forget that the interface of the future
>>> library has already gone through the standard committe.
> 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.
I did not do this precisely because Braddock submitted his library for
review before mine was ready. If my implementation of futures had been
the only one, I would have just added it as an extension of the thread
library. Because Braddock had submitted an alternate implementation with
a distinct interface it seemed presumptious of me to add it to
Boost.Thread. I also hoped it would be reviewed before WG21 got to vote
on the proposals, so the review could provide feedback to the committee.
> Considering the way this review has floundered at this point, that is
> the best outcome that I can see.
I am happy to do this if that's what people want.
-- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action | http://www.manning.com/williams just::thread C++0x thread library | http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976